Re: new policy topic --- syslog() [was Re: syslog facilities]
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 suggestions about what LOG_LOCAL[0-7] are
used for. You mean the unified syslog policy de facto?
> Well, yes, I agree, the locally-reserved facility issue is the first
> one to solve.
Yes. I think LOG_LOCAL[0-7] should be local and entirely available to the
local sysadmin (according to Avery).
> local2 ppp subsystem
> local5 fax subsystem
> local0,1,3,4,5,6,7 hands off (I don't know what's going into local0 ---
> you seem to be capturing it.)
Qpopper 2.2 (both in bo and hamm, as far as I can see the source packages)
logs through facility LOG_LOCAL0.
> .....A. P. Harris...apharris@onShore.com...<URL:http://www.onShore.com/>
Fuji^
--
.+'''+. .+'''+. .+'''+. .+'''+. .+''
Kelemen Péter / \ / \ fuji@heureka.inf.elte.hu
.+' `+...+' `+...+' `+...+' `+...+'
Reply to: