Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:14:27 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Daniel Bond <db@danielbond.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? Message-ID: <E81C5DAE-8E5F-40E3-BB8C-EBAAD2BA68BC@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <46798C80.6020108@danielbond.org> References: <E745210E-A5B8-48E0-B6A8-A467F1054BD7@svcolo.com> <20070620151306.GM45993@therub.org> <20070620115023971992.49dc4616@kjsl.com> <20070620164749.GN45993@therub.org> <a9f4a3860706201040u1f7e89eane68a7588cd017b96@mail.gmail.com> <44A91A3E-96EA-46F3-ABE4-01C4662B5A5F@svcolo.com> <a9f4a3860706201256s5c4543d6t93448c9c12cf3439@mail.gmail.com> <C677DC46-7CA1-4A12-AB69-4B461A4CD29A@svcolo.com> <46798C80.6020108@danielbond.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 20, 2007, at 1:22 PM, Daniel Bond wrote: > I like Kurt's approach Well the goal is to allow either approach to work. Kurt is arguing against this patch because it doesn't work for him... > having a mailfilter/script-pipe which could > remove dynamic variables like timestamps etc, and checksum it against > against a "empty" template to see if its deletable. > This also verifies that mail-delivery is working, and machine is > not dead. But thats where the logic fails. Show me a mailfilter that will observe the lack of a message? Nobody who is against this patch is making logical arguments... Yes, I agree in theory. If you have scripts that output a lot of data every time and you need to look for anomolies, then a mailfilter/ pipe approach makes a lot of sense. But that doesn't mean that this patch is a bad idea. -- Jo Rhett senior geek Silicon Valley Colocation Support Phone: 408-400-0550
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?E81C5DAE-8E5F-40E3-BB8C-EBAAD2BA68BC>