[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: RFC: Making mail-transport-agent Priority: optional

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:46:50PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le samedi 15 octobre 2011 à 12:36 +0200, Adam Borowski a écrit : 
> > Hell no.  I'd go as far as labelling it a severity:critical bug.
> Go ahead, reporting bugs doesn’t necessarily get people to give a fuck.

So "causes serious data loss" is no longer RC?  Good to know.

> > If some part of the system has something important to say, you need to tell
> > it to the user -- or face serious data loss.  Mails sent to root are
> > something important (or the part which sends them should be spanked for
> > spamming).
> You seem to be unaware of the fact that users faced with too many
> messages or alerts will discard them without reading. This is part of
> what makes Vista a security disaster.

Do you mean, "are you sure you want to exit the program?" that has recently
been added to some programs because "Windows users expect that"?  Or the
envelope icon Gnome3 adds that holds such important info like the last song
that started playing (used to OSD for a couple of seconds), or that you got
new mail (no matter it's already shown elsewhere, and the mail is long read
and gone).

If a daemon thinks a notification is important enough to send a mail to
root, it most likely is.

> > I've recently attempted to recover data lost by a client -- they had a RAID1
> > setup.  It turns out one of the disks failed seven months ago, mdadm duly
> > kept notifying about that, but this wonderous Gnome feature meant no one
> > knew.  And seven months later, the other disk failed...
> In squeeze, GNOME prints alerts about failing disks. This is the perfect
> example of a well-defined error message that the user can take action
> upon. This is also a perfect example where using syslog would be
> completely irrelevant.

I don't know about squeeze, but at least in unstable in May it did not send
any alerts for degraded RAID.  I guess it may consider a "failing disk" to
be one that has I/O errors or SMART notices and not one which is missing
(this time, I didn't insert the data ribbon right after messing inside), but
the effect is mostly the same.

Also, do you mean that every single check has to be duplicated for Gnome? 
That every single daemon which might have something important to say needs
to depend on some Gnome libs so it can send a notification?

1KB		// Yo momma uses IPv4!

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: