#staff | Logs for 2023-02-13
« return
[02:16:15] <sylvester> 2023-02-13 03:16:15 08mail.soylentnews WARNING SMTP STARTTLS Certificate IPv600 WARNING - Certificate soylentnews.org expires in 17 day(s) (Thu 02 Mar 2023 04:45:45 PM GMT +0000).
[14:38:22] <sylvester> 2023-02-13 15:38:22 08mail.soylentnews WARNING SMTP STARTTLS Certificate IPv400 WARNING - Certificate soylentnews.org expires in 17 day(s) (Thu 02 Mar 2023 04:45:45 PM GMT +0000).
[15:02:12] <sylvester> 2023-02-13 16:02:12 08mail.soylentnews WARNING SMTP Submission Certificate IPv400 WARNING - Certificate soylentnews.org expires in 17 day(s) (Thu 02 Mar 2023 04:45:45 PM GMT +0000).
[15:06:13] <sylvester> 2023-02-13 16:06:13 08mail.soylentnews WARNING SMTP Submission Certificate IPv600 WARNING - Certificate soylentnews.org expires in 17 day(s) (Thu 02 Mar 2023 04:45:45 PM GMT +0000).
[15:16:07] <fab23> I have halfed the checks for the certificates, no need to check for both IPv4 + IPv6.
[18:58:27] <Bytram> fab23: Hmmm. Maybe alternate them? check IPv4 one time. Next time check IPv6. Next time go back to IPv4. etc. ???
[19:18:53] <fab23> Bytram: hm, don't know how I could implement that, its Nagios doing it and it does schedule the checks on its own
[19:22:49] <fab23> check time is currently 1500 minutes (25 hours), and when state is not ok, it retries after 750 minutes, 2 checks need to fail (or be ok) until notification (interval 25 hours for the certificates, all others are much shorter)
[19:26:37] <fab23> Bytram: as far as I know most services do have one certificate defined independent of IPv4 or IPv6
[20:01:49] <Bytram> fab23: Just my "testing mind" reacting to the thought of NOT checking at all; *assuming* if one is okay, then that implies the other is, too. Sends off alarm bells in my mind! What kind of a load are we talking about? I would not have thought there was much of a load -- why not keep them both (here my ignorance is on display!)
[20:03:57] <fab23> Bytram: its more aboout the double noice in here (and my private noticifacion channel)
[20:04:20] <fab23> s/noice/noise/ :)
[20:08:11] <Bytram> Hmm; pardon my ignorance... can you please give a couple examples?
[20:20:34] <fab23> Bytram: see above the messages from sylvester
[20:31:15] <Bytram> Thank You! Now I get it. So the "reporting" is "noisy"!? Can the messages first be sent somewhere else where it can be "filtered"? Or... sent to some other channel which logs it (and save this channel from all the "noise")?
[20:35:03] <Bytram> fab23: ^^^
[20:35:28] <Bytram> gtg; sorry! laters.