proc related alerts based on group (feature request)

[Asif Iqbal]

another related feature request. `info' column completely ignores any
GROUP associated alert rules. Would be nice if it shows that.

On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Asif Iqbal <vadud3 at gmail.com> wrote:
> PROC joeproc GROUP=joe
>
> GROUP=joe
>  MAIL joe at example.com
>  ! MAIL wholegroup at example.com
>
> Can I do something like this?
>
> I want to alert joe only about `joeproc' . So that part works fine by
> giving the process a group-id and
> alert `onlyjoe at example.com' only when grouip-id matches.
>
> But, I also want only joe gets alert for those processes. So is there
> a way I can prevent the whole group to
> receive alerts related to joeproc ? would be nice if I could have
> EXPROC or NOT MAIL .. something like that.
>
> So
>
> this can be achieved easily:
>  alert joe at example.com ONLY for process joeproc. don't alert him for
> any other procs.
>
> this cannot be achieved easily:
>  alert ONLY joe at example.con for process joeproc. don't alert
> wholegroup at example.com for this process.
>
>
> I could exservice proc for wholegroup at example.com and then for each
> group of hosts (PAGE) or each list of hosts (using regex)
> I need to setup a GROUP for the list of procs that I want the
> wholegroup to be alerted on. That is lot of work
>
> It would be easy if I rather have some negation rule synatx, like
> EXPROC or NOT MAIL
>
> any suggestion is welcome.
>
> --
> Asif Iqbal
> PGP Key: 0xE62693C5 KeyServer: pgp.mit.edu
> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>



-- 
Asif Iqbal
PGP Key: 0xE62693C5 KeyServer: pgp.mit.edu
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?