On Thu, 2003-01-30 at 13:16, Darin Dugan wrote:
> At 01:33 PM 1/30/2003, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> >On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 at 2:16pm, Mitch Collinsworth wrote
> >
> > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 30 Jan 2003 at 12:47pm, Don Carlton wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Has anyone changed the mail report to produce html?
> > > >
> > > > Oh, the horror!  ;)
> > >
> > > Agreed if sent by e-mail,  but if it were instead dumped into a web-served
> > > directory...
> >
> >Well, IMO it's still unnecessary.  Webservers serve out plain text just
> >fine.
> >
> >Sometimes I feel like such a curmudgeon.
> 
> Agreed. (the first part, not the curmudgeon) But there's a difference 
> between needed features and desired features. HTML formatted reports 
> probably fall into the desired category.
> 
> That said, web-based Amanda reports could be useful for those who would 
> rather check a central web site than read yet another piece of mail. My 
> first order of business in the day is to open a central console that fires 
> off to MRTG graphs, big brother reports, a call database, etc. Amanda could 
> be another one of those.

A good reason to have HTML reports is features, not prettyness.  Use the
hypertext part of HTML.

For example, error messages could be links to doc that explains in
detail what the error means, and how to fix it.

-- 
Tom Schutter (mailto:tom AT platte DOT com)
Platte River Associates, Inc. (http://www.platte.com)