Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 12:59:31 -0700 From: Jo Rhett <jrhett@svcolo.com> To: Dennis Melentyev <dennis.melentyev@gmail.com> Cc: Kurt Jaeger <lists@c0mplx.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: how much beer do I need to get this patch applied? Message-ID: <3A465CC8-03F6-42C8-9565-C24D7A3C518D@svcolo.com> In-Reply-To: <b84edfa10706210131i47027bbgc0dd0b6664879f51@mail.gmail.com> 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> <20070620200113.GH13981@home.c0mplx.org> <b84edfa10706210131i47027bbgc0dd0b6664879f51@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jun 21, 2007, at 1:31 AM, Dennis Melentyev wrote: > While I haven't seen any problem with patch itself since it just > adding a _useful_ knob, I personaly managed to use procmail to filter > most of that SPAM. My solution is not as CPU friendly as patch but > 2000 messages is not an ultimate load for modern comps. Of course not. The trouble is properly writing a script that will recognize normal and not-normal output for thousands of different scripts. And dealing with any failures in that extra script. In short, this solution adds complexity without any improvement over the patch. I've been using this patch for 2 years now. Or, this patch for a year and a not-as-good patch I made a year before that. We push out the revised periodic script using cfengine. But I hate overwriting OS files, and I believe that most people want this behavior. -- 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?3A465CC8-03F6-42C8-9565-C24D7A3C518D>