Michal Jaegermann said: In /etc/aliases you probably have lines like that:
# Person who should get root's mail #root: marc
Maybe install should ask data for this alias and fill that lines unless specifically and emphatically declined? The big advantage is that this solves the issue in a general way instead for some specific cases like smart.
Or perhaps in FirstBoot(?)
WPH
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:35:23 -0800, William Hewitt wphewitt@bpa.gov wrote:
Michal Jaegermann said: Maybe install should ask data for this alias and fill that lines unless specifically and emphatically declined? The big advantage is that this solves the issue in a general way instead for some specific cases like smart.
Or perhaps in FirstBoot(?)
I was actually trying to use the smartd specific example of the need for a more general solution to the problem of relying of users to interact with the system as root users in a number of ways in order to see useful information. How many users see the logging and notification information the system could be producing? How many users actually login as root and read roots local email? In a home system situations i doubt its very many. In large multiuser corporate network you can probably reasonably rely on it. On hobbiest desktops and workstations its going to depend heavily on that person's experience level, new people coming in to the fedora process as their first venture into linux i doubt are going to know check roots email for this sort of notification.
-jef
lør, 18.12.2004 kl. 01.46 skrev Jeff Spaleta:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:35:23 -0800, William Hewitt wphewitt@bpa.gov wrote:
Michal Jaegermann said: Maybe install should ask data for this alias and fill that lines unless specifically and emphatically declined? The big advantage is that this solves the issue in a general way instead for some specific cases like smart.
Or perhaps in FirstBoot(?)
I was actually trying to use the smartd specific example of the need for a more general solution to the problem of relying of users to interact with the system as root users in a number of ways in order to see useful information. How many users see the logging and notification information the system could be producing? How many users actually login as root and read roots local email? In a home system situations i doubt its very many. In large multiuser corporate network you can probably reasonably rely on it.
Not on every workstation...
On hobbiest desktops and workstations its going to depend heavily on that person's experience level, new people coming in to the fedora process as their first venture into linux i doubt are going to know check roots email for this sort of notification.
-jef
On Mon, Dec 20, 2004 at 08:35:34PM +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote:
actually login as root and read roots local email? In a home system situations i doubt its very many. In large multiuser corporate network you can probably reasonably rely on it.
Not on every workstation...
I dunno about corporate, but in *our* "enterprise" environment (Boston University), you can pretty much rely on it being completely ignored on most workstations unless something is done proactively to encourage the mail to go to a human or a remote logserver.
On 12/17/2004 04:35:23 PM, William Hewitt wrote:
Michal Jaegermann said: In /etc/aliases you probably have lines like that:
# Person who should get root's mail #root: marc
Maybe install should ask data for this alias and fill that lines unless specifically and emphatically declined? The big advantage
is
that this solves the issue in a general way instead for some specific cases like smart.
Or perhaps in FirstBoot(?)
firstboot is where it should go imho - you don't have any users set up until then. It needs to be done somewhere, and that is where users are created so that's the logical spot.
On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 01:23:14AM +0000, Michael A. Peters wrote:
On 12/17/2004 04:35:23 PM, William Hewitt wrote:
Michal Jaegermann said: In /etc/aliases you probably have lines like that:
# Person who should get root's mail #root: marc
Maybe install should ask data for this alias and fill that lines unless specifically and emphatically declined? The big advantage
is
that this solves the issue in a general way instead for some specific cases like smart.
Or perhaps in FirstBoot(?)
firstboot is where it should go imho - you don't have any users set up until then.
Yes, I think that you are indeed right. Also this should be persuasive and persistent allowing _not_ to set that alias only after receiving assurances from a user that "yes, I really do know what I am doing and what are consequences".
Michal