On Fri, 31 Dec 1999, Erick Otto wrote:
> Do you mean that analog only recognizes 3 digit result codes as being proper
> ?
>
Yes.
> Is there anyway around this ?
>
No, because these are the only proper result codes.
Well, actually, you could write a pair of LOGFORMAT lines, one which used %c
to read the code, and one which used %j to ignore whatever was there in
place of the code if the code couldn't be read. Then all the lines with bad
codes would be counted as successes. If you have difficulty doing this, send
a (very) few logfile lines to the list and someone will help you.
> So why according to MS values between 100 and 1000 are proper HTTP CODES ?
>
> I am not too familiar with the codes but they MS Seems to say that between
> 100 and 1000 is o.k.
>
Sloppy use of "between" I think. Anyway, only a few codes in the range
100-999 are actually valid, but analog will accept the line with any
three-digit code to allow for local or future extensions of HTTP.
> Erick
>
> PS I re-verify the ERRFILE thing...
>
OK I'll check it out.
> PPS For some reason in version 332 the use of
>
> LOGFILES W399*.log does not recognize the use of the '*' as multiple files.
> Is this a new feature in V4....
>
No, it should work in v3 too (it's LOGFILE not LOGFILES though).
> Thanks again,
>
> HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERY BODY
>
And to you!
--
Stephen Turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/
Statistical Laboratory, 16 Mill Lane, Cambridge CB2 1SB, England
"Children from St Lawrence's School have buried a time capsule to mark both
the millennium and National Tree Week." Cambridge Town Crier, 16/12/99
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe analog-help" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
