[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: logcheck



On Monday, 10.01.2005 at 17:00 +0000, Dave Ewart wrote:

> On Monday, 10.01.2005 at 10:08 -0600, Rodney Richison wrote:
> 
> > >>I guess I need help figuring out how to make logcheck quit reporting 
> > >>lines like this:
> > >>
> > >>Jan 10 08:07:25 deblists.rcrnet.net amavisd-new[11923]: (11923-03) 
> > >>Passed, <bounce-9309147-995167@lists.isp-lists.com> -> 
> > >><rodney@deblists.rcrnet.net>, Message-ID: 
> > >><19a9fd1705011006031d85ad89@mail.gmail.com>, Hits: -1.458
> > >>
> > >>I don't want to know if something passed.  amavis logs to 
> > >>/var/log/amavis.log and I told logcheck to monitor it, but I'm getting TO 
> > >>MUCH. I looked at the docs and was still unable to figure it out.
> > >>   
> > >>
> > >
> > >Add the expression:
> > >
> > >amavisd-new.*Passed
> > >
> > >to the appropriate logcheck
> > > 
> > >
> > That's part of the problem. While 
> > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/securing-debian-howto/ch4.en.html says 
> > add it to this file |/etc/logcheck/ignore.d.reportlevel/local it does 
> > not exist. However, there is a file in 
> > ||/etc/logcheck/ignore.d.reportlevel/amavisd-new   I just now put this 
> > in it amavis\[[0-9]+\]: +(\([-0-9]+\) +)?Passed
> > 
> > Sound reasonable?
> 
> I guess so.  Does it work? :-)

(Off-list Rodney says this doesn't work - please keep replies on list)

OK, it doesn't work because that expression won't match the line above.
The regexp is looking for amavis followed by a process ID in brackets,
you have amavisd-new.

Try a simple expression to see if it excludes the messages, such as the
one I suggested.

Does putting 

amavisd-new.*Passed

into /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.reportlevel/amavisd-new help?

Dave.
-- 
Dave Ewart - davee@sungate.co.uk - jabber: davee@jabber.org
All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/
Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: