how much beer do I need to get this patch applied?

[Jo Rhett]

On Jun 20, 2007, at 12:56 PM, Kurt Buff wrote:
> Currently, if you get no message from that box, *something* is broken.

I am not capable as a human being of noticing the lack of one  
message, when without this patch I would get more than 2,000 each day.

>> The more likely is that the OP starts deleting the messages unread
>> each day and thus never sees an actual failure report.
>
> Failure of imagination.

No.  Having done the work to verify that failures will be reported, I  
configure the mail system to only send me mail on errors.  Better  
design.

> Perhaps a separate mailbox dedicated to this task, with a script
> (grep?) that parses the emails in that mailbox daily looking for
> expected messages, noting and deleting them, with unsent messages
> noted via an email and messages with unexpected content forwarded as
> well?

This doesn't solve the "lack of a message" problem you mentioned above.

It also requires a new system to be designed and configured, which  
could have failures of its own.  This is more abstraction and zero  
gain for our environment.  Any error should be read in our  
situation.  A non-error does not need to be read.

In any case, the primary consideration with this patch is that it  
allows either model to work.  You can do it your way, and we can do  
it our way.

-- 
Jo Rhett
senior geek

Silicon Valley Colocation
Support Phone: 408-400-0550