Re: No Alerts

[Chris Lopeman]

I think both the empty block and "none" or "nothing" keywords would be 
good.  I tried one and I looked for the other. 

Since we are talking about what the check process alert message should 
allow....  My first attempt was actually to code the alert without an 
address.  Assuming it would apply to this check for the default 
address.  That syntax is not allowed.  To me it should be.  It would 
shorten and simplify my script.  It would also allow me to have one 
place to change my alert destination.  Instead right now I have 15 
places to change but they are all the same.  Basically rendering the 
global one useless.

But anyway, thanks for the fast response and the solid answer.  Sounds 
like I am on the right track at least.

Chris

Jan-Henrik Haukeland wrote:

> Chris Lopeman <address@hidden> writes:
>
>  
>
> > I was hoping to setup Monit to issues no alerts on certain checks,
> > just to have it monitor and do restarts.
> >
> > check process sshd with pidfile /var/run/sshd.pid
> >        alert address@hidden on {}  # Dont alert
> >       ............
> >
> > But that generates a syntax error.  Is the right way to accomplish
> > this to alert filter to something that will never happen
> >
> > check process sshd with pidfile /var/run/sshd.pid
> >        alert address@hidden on {uid}  # Dont alert
> >       ............
> >    
>
> One "right way" is just to skip the alert statement for that
> particular check entry. But for this to work you must not use a global
> SET ALERT statement. Maybe we should allow an empty alert filter block
> as you first tried or use a "none" keyword for no alters? For example:
>  
>  alert address@hidden on {none}
>
> Thoughts?
>
>