[hobbit] Is there any equivalent to BB's notifications exclusions?

[SebA]

Henrik Størner <mailto:henrik at hswn.dk> wrote:
> In <1232560301 at mknews.sslug.dk> "SebA" <spa at syntec.co.uk> writes:
> 
>> I would like to migrate my notifications rules from BB Server to
>> Hobbit / Xymon Server.  I use the following BB syntax extensively:
> 
>> # You can also write rules to exclude recipients based on the
>> #	previous syntax. Just prefix with ! and any recipient
>> #	specified in the rule line will be removed from the
>> #	list of recipients that matches the regular rules #
>> #	for all hosts don't send any notifications from=20 #	12AM to 6AM
>> and 8PM to 12AM #
>> # !*;;*;;*;0000-0600 2000-2359;*
> 
> If you only want to send alerts between 6AM and 8PM, then  
> TIME=*:0600:2000 will do that. Alternatively, an "EXTIME=*:2000:0600"
> has the same effect (a more direct conversion of this rule).

Hi Henrik,

That's not quite the same thing (see below), but I think if I put EXTIME
rules in with the e-mail addresses in macros (for convenience), I will be
able to do what I need to.

>> # !host*;;*;;0 6;*;robert at localhost
> 
> HOST=* EXHOST=%^host
>    MAIL robert at localhost

Not really: the BB rule says: for _all_ alerts that were due to be raised
for host*, at the weekend, to robert at localhost (based on higher up rules
with no ! prefix), don't send them out. In other words, cancel all previous
_matching_ MAIL commands for this exclusion. Or sort of like a bitmask. Your
rule says: send alerts to robert at localhost for all hosts except hosts
beginning with 'host'.

>> # !host1;;*;;*;*;*
> 
> HOST=* EXHOST=host1

Same as above. The BB rule disables all notifications for this host 'host1'.
Your rule sends out notifications for all hosts except 'host1'. Although in
Hobbit / Xymon, you wouldn't disable notifications like this, of course,
you'd use the info page to disable them. So this is no big deal.

I still think Xymon may benefit from a notifications exclusions system
though. (Especially for easier migration for BB users! ;)) On the other
hand, it does add complication that is perhaps unnecessary. I currently use
these exclusions extensively. From when someone goes on holiday (turn off
all their alerts no matter what service or host they refer to), or maybe
your e-mail to SMS gateway or provider has a problem and you want to stop
all those e-mails (but not all the internal e-mails) being generated,
queueing up and then coming through in a rather unnecessarrily expensive
flood when the SMS provider starts working again. Maybe this can be solved
with the route or depends tags and appropriate tests, but not if it's a
deeper problem, like with the cellular network...

Kind regards,

SebA