-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: > Theo Van Dinter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Since we've already overloaded the add_facilities() function to also > > change level w/ "info", we could change it so that one can override > > for all the levels. That would make it easier for people to just keep > > using "-D", but it does overload the facility API. > > If I supported lowering/raising more so, I'd add a new API. I'd say the easiest way to do it would be to add a new "-v" (verbose) switch -- either than or turn info into something that's logged by default unless the user uses a new "-q" (quiet) switch. Those are the generic UIs generally used in UNIX utilities for this. I'm not fond of the "-Dinfo" special case. It reminds me too much of the frankly bizarre "-Drbl=-255" incantation. I know you don't like adding new switches, but adding a *special case* to an existing switch, which takes an entirely different action, is in my opinion even *more* confusing for users. > > It seems like the breakdown ought to be something like: > > > > dbg messages only seen with -D, nothing major > > info messages only seen in logs (not STDERR), nothing major > > warning messages logged and seen via STDERR, but processing continues > > (warn) > > error messages logged and seen via STDERR, processing stops (die) > > I can change the code to set different levels per facility. That's not > too hard. I'll try to check in a fix this weekend. What does this mean? I don't understand what "different levels per facility" refers to. > The other possible addition would be to add a notice() level for most > log-centric messages in the spamd and preforking code. I like Theo's definition table above, a lot. Could we add that to the POD as a guideline? ...And where would notice fit in? > > FWIW: I've already had users complaining to me about the info output. > > They'll run sa-learn, see some info output saying that a config line > > can't be parsed, and think sa-learn failed. So the new verboseness is > > going to cause issues. > > Well, they are errors! Most Unix programs would show an error. Yes, I think it's acceptable for a command run manually. We need only be silent for the filtering case (ie the "spamassassin" cmd). - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFChnuWMJF5cimLx9ARAvw+AJoC95JCF94GX+HPirLa3hneIr4i/gCeLio3 cnbFskqZsOo3zAnCTgn6BdE= =C6Xi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
