On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Richard Lewis wrote:
> > May 26 06:49:14 gatling pure-ftpd: (?@152.32.206.247) [INFO] New connection
> > from 152.32.206.247
> > May 26 06:49:33 gatling pure-ftpd: (?@152.32.206.247) [INFO] Logout.
> > May 26 06:49:33 gatling pure-ftpd: (?@152.32.206.247) [INFO] New
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 at 14:21, Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote:
>
> On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Richard Lewis wrote:
>
> > > does not cover log entry
> > >
> > > Jan 4 07:23:42 gatling pure-ftpd: (?@203.158.197.21) [INFO] Logout.
> > >
> > > The problem is with ? before @.
> >
> > It's a shame no-one replied to
On Sat, 1 Jun 2024, Richard Lewis wrote:
> > does not cover log entry
> >
> > Jan 4 07:23:42 gatling pure-ftpd: (?@203.158.197.21) [INFO] Logout.
> >
> > The problem is with ? before @.
>
> It's a shame no-one replied to this bug from 2012
> Is there still interest in adding this rule, and is
control: tags -1 + moreinfo
thanks
On Wed, 04 Jan 2012 09:58:11 +0100 Gabor Kiss wrote:
> /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/pure-ftpd rule
>
> ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ pure-ftpd:
> \([._[:alnum:]-]+@[._[:alnum:]-]+\) \[INFO\] Logout\.$
>
> does not cover log entry
>
> Jan 4 07:23:42
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.3.13
Severity: minor
/etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/pure-ftpd rule
^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ pure-ftpd:
\([._[:alnum:]-]+@[._[:alnum:]-]+\) \[INFO\] Logout\.$
does not cover log entry
Jan 4 07:23:42 gatling pure-ftpd: (?@203.158.197.21) [INFO]
5 matches
Mail list logo
