Darren & WG: I have used this morning to compile a short list of currently existing and deployed syslogds. As I suggested, I have sent several messages to them. I suggest you have a look at the results at
http://www.syslog.cc/ietf/existing-syslog.html I do not see much in that result backing the theory that retaining the old-style timestamp would do any good. Maybe I am overlooking the obvious, so you can point me. Ah, yes: Of course I see that sometimes the 3164 timestamp survives in the first column of the log entry where the -protocol formatted does not. But when I look at relaying, I think it is far better to have the timestamp replaced by the time of reception than to have it throw away. In most cases, digital signatures would be borken anyhow. Surprisingly, the -protocol formatted message has a better chance to survive being relayed by existing syslogd than the RFC 3164 formatted message. I propose that we accept this testing as proof of irrelevance of sticking with the rfc 3164 timestamp. Anybody with a different view please object. Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren Reed > Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 7:39 AM > To: Anton Okmianski (aokmians) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Syslog] #1 - RFC3164, was: Consensus? > > [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] > > Which system is this source from? > > BSD > > > On Solaris, if you send \r\n characters, you will see > "^M\n" in the log. > > Yes and Solaris allows for non-ascii data through the use of escaping. > > Darren > > _______________________________________________ > Syslog mailing list > Syslog@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog > _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list Syslog@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
