Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-18 Thread Adam P. Harris
Well we seem to have consensus that LOG_LOCAL* should be indeed local as it says. I believe we should add it as policy. Maybe I'm just becoming a bureaucratic policy fanatic. OTOH, maybe it will be a good thing to make this explicit policy. Then maybe someone will get up the gumption to add so

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-12 Thread KELEMEN Peter
On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote: > Sure, but I think we could keep our thoughts at the level of "what would > you think is reasonable out of the box". There's a lot of generality; > the baseline and de facto "policy" is what ships w/ sysklogd. AFAIR sysklogd doesn't have any suggestio

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-11 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, Well, apart from fax/ppp, there is also named (which is why I started all this in the first place), which can do tons of syslog based logging (with custom facilities and all). manoj -- Stay out of the road, if you want to grow old. Pink Floyd Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROT

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-11 Thread Adam P. Harris
[You (Karl M. Hegbloom)] > Some more facilities should be hacked into syslogd, I think. > > Hmmm... fax, ppp, www, isdn(?), uhhmmm... what else? I would have all dialout stuff (chat, ppp, isdn-ppp) go to a 'serial' facility, or perhaps a better name (dialout is not good, since it could be dial

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-10 Thread Karl M. Hegbloom
Some more facilities should be hacked into syslogd, I think. Hmmm... fax, ppp, www, isdn(?), uhhmmm... what else?

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-10 Thread Kai Henningsen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Adam P. Harris) wrote on 09.02.98 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Even that's a bit icky; since by the definition in , local? > should be locally defined and not reserved or structured in anyway. But > the reality is we either have to hack and make some new > facilities for the ess

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-09 Thread Adam P. Harris
[You (Manoj Srivastava)] > The problem with this is that specifying a syslog policy is so > hard to do (it is a very personal issue). Sure, but I think we could keep our thoughts at the level of "what would you think is reasonable out of the box". There's a lot of generality; the baseli

Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-09 Thread Manoj Srivastava
Hi, The problem with this is that specifying a syslog policy is so hard to do (it is a very personal issue). For example, if we ask people to show what their syslog.conf does, I think we shall find little convergence. For example, I like some duplication, as can be seen in my syslog.co

new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]

1998-02-09 Thread Adam P. Harris
[Redirected to ] [You (Manoj Srivastava)] > Is there any policy/convention about using facilities local0 > though local 7? I notice that ppp has take onver local2 and local5 > now belogs to hylafax (on my machine). > I ask this since I want to add a chanel to named for logging > all