Re: logcheck gaps in time
Am 05. Jun, 2001 schwäzte Dave Sherohman so:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 07:58:50AM -0500, hanasaki wrote:
>
> > I have added the following else statement to the script so there is
> > always a report. I would appreciate it if the utility's owner would
> > consider adding this to his/her next revision and giving a small credit
> > if they do.
>
> I would not appreciate it. I suppose adding an option (so long as the
> current behaviour remains the default) would be OK, but I'm of the opinion
That's the way I set it up when I changed logcheck.
> that, if there's nothing to report, I don't want to be bothered with null
> mail. The absence of a problem report is itself confirmation that there
> is no problem. (Same principle: Create an empty directory, cd into it,
Not necessarily. It could also be evidence that someone's turned off
logcheck, which is mostly what this thread was concetrating on :).
I need to add a mail handler that will expect the mail from logcheck and
inform me if it doesn't come in. In priciple I want to only get the bad
news, but I want to make sure something is checking that the local machine
is still working properly ( well, it's still not a guarantee it hasn't been
tampered with, but it's one more level they have to overcome ).
A mail filter, snmp query or network monitoring module could be used to eat
the empty reports, but let me know if they didn't get one they expected.
ciao,
der.hans
--
# der.hans@LuftHans.com home.pages.de/~lufthans/ www.DevelopOnline.com
# I'm not anti-social, I'm pro-individual. - der.hans
Reply to: