Making, drinking tea and reading an opus magnum from Dave Beckstrom: > That line generated an "atrun not found" error message. I assume that means > that line needs to be modified to work with at. If so, what should it look > like?
there is no atrun anymore. cron does it... > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hugo Villeneuve [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:04 PM > > To: Dave Beckstrom > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: DOS Attacks? > > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 03:26:40PM -0500, Dave Beckstrom wrote: > > > Greg, > > > > > > I believe the problem has already been solved thanks to some help from a > > > gentleman who sent me some information privately. > > > > > > I won't know for certain for a day or two but I am optimistic. > > > > > > I want to thank the people who responded with some suggestions for > > debugging > > > and things to try. > > > > > > I'm going to unsubscribe from the list now. > > > > > > Nobody was able to tell me how to replace the functionality of the > > > > > > " */10 * * * * /usr/libexec/atrun" > > > > > > line in my cron file. I had read the man pages regarding "at" before I > > > asked the question but I didn't fully understand how "at" might replace > > > atrun. So if someone cares to help on that last question please shoot > > me a > > > private email. > > > > > > Have a great day everyone. > > > > Did "at" jobs stop working without that line? > > > > No, 'cause the atrun functionnality was merged into cron since OpenBSD > > 3.2. > > > > Welcome to 2002. > > > > > > -- > > Hugo Villeneuve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > http://EINTR.net/ > -- paranoic mickey (my employers have changed but, the name has remained)
