You can configure rsyslog or syslog-ng to use the regular TCP protocol without framing, but then you lose support for multi-line logs.
On 1/18/16, 7:47 PM, "Ralph Goers" <[email protected]> wrote: >When I wrote the SyslogAppender and RFC5424Layout I am pretty sure I tested it >with syslog-ng. At that time we didn’t support TLS, so I wasn’t adding a >TLSSyslogFrame. I don’t recall having any problems with that or with rsyslog. > >Ralph > >> On Jan 18, 2016, at 5:42 PM, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> What about using a <SyslogAppender> with a <Rfc5424Layout>? >> >> Gary >> >> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Blake Day <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It was worth a look, but no. SocketAppender creates an SslSocketManager >>> when protocol = SSL. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/18/16, 5:46 PM, "Gary Gregory" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think you might be able to "cheat" by saying protocol="SSL" on the >>>> appender... >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Blake Day <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> We are trying to achieve RFC5424 message formats over TCP transport >>>>> without TLS. >>>>> >>>>> As you may know, SyslogAppender uses an instance of Rfc5424Layout to >>>>> provide the logging layout. That layout takes a parameter called >>>>> “useTlsMessageFormat”, which SyslogAppender sets based on whether TLS is >>>>> configured. When true, the layout wraps the log event in a >>>>> TlsSyslogFrame. TlsSyslogFrame simply prepends a length to the full log >>>>> message, but that length is required by syslog-ng to frame RFC5424 >>>>> messages. While the RFC for TCP-based transport of the RFC5424 format >>> does >>>>> not allow for non-TLS connections, some users (like us) would like to >>> adopt >>>>> the RFC5424 format over TCP *without* TLS. We believe, but have not >>>>> tested, that we could do this by simply adding a configuration >>> parameter to >>>>> the SyslogAppender that allows us to override useTlsMessageFormat to >>> true. >>>>> >>>>> Any thoughts on this change? Have we overlooked an obvious alternative >>> to >>>>> achieving RFC5424 over TCP without TLS? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>> Michael Day >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >>>> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second Edition >> <http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >> JUnit in Action, Second Edition <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
