That almost solves the problem. If a message comes in and matches the !prog it 
will log, but if it also matches another line in the syslog.conf file, it will 
log to that destination too. That is not a huge deal, but can cause duplicate 
messages.Thanks for the confirmation. Sent from my Galaxy
-------- Original message --------From: [email protected] Date: 1/14/26  7:54 PM  
(GMT-06:00) To: Simen Stavdal <[email protected]>, Michael Graves 
<[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: Problem using syslog 
!!prog syntax                 as per man page !!prog seems to be using,"either 
OR" logic and !prog "AND"So I think you need !prog not !!progBoth will stop 
evaluation of any subsequent blocks. So we do need to add !* after !prog 
also.!relayd*.*     /var/log/relayd*.*     tls4://logginghost:8513!*            
                                                                                
            On Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 11:45:31 PM GMT+9, All 
<[email protected]> wrote:                                                        
                                                    I agree, perhaps the 
wording could be more precise. Although, one can argue that specifying *several 
selectors* in order to log this and not that can be considered a "set" of 
actions.Not sure if you really want !!prog for your use case.!prog should 
suffice, as in:!relayd*.*     /var/log/relayd*.*     tls4://logginghost:8513On 
Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 10:43:03 PM GMT+9, Michael Graves 
<[email protected]> wrote: Thanks for the response.  When we consider the 
non-!!prog use case, having multiple *.* matches isn't a problem.  It is only 
within the !!prog block that there is 1 match then done.  Reading the man page: 
               !!prog causes the subsequent block to abort evaluation when a 
message                matches, ensuring that only a single **set of actions** 
is taken.                (emphasis mine)The way I read this is, that any and 
all actions within the block will be evaluated and taken upon a match.  Perhaps 
that is not what was indended and/or I my reading of the man page is 
wrong.Assuming I am not wrong in my interpertation of the intent, I have 
submitted this(https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-bugs&m=176807926301784&w=2) bug 
report with a possible fix.  CheersSent from my Galaxy-------- Original message 
--------From: [email protected] Date: 1/12/26 10:29 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Michael 
Graves <[email protected]>, Simen Stavdal <[email protected]> Cc: 
[email protected] Subject: Re: Problem using syslog !!prog syntax !!prog causes 
subsequent block to abort evaluation when a message matches.*.* means match 
everything. You have two of those statements. But first one will always match. 
Next one should not be evaluated as per !!prog logic then.I think you proved 
that this is the case when you changed order of your statements.Right?On 
Saturday, January 10, 2026 at 06:48:26 PM GMT+9, Simen Stavdal 
<[email protected]> wrote: Hi Michael,From what I can see in the man pages, it 
should log to both.Example from the man page :# Everybody gets emergency 
messages, plus log them on another# machine.*.emerg **.emerg 
@arpa.berkeley.eduThis, however, is outside the !! (per daemon logs).As a test, 
would it work if you set up logging to two destinations "globally", i.e outside 
the logging rules for the particular daemon?/sOn Sun, 4 Jan 2026 at 00:14, 
Michael Graves <[email protected]> wrote:> I am trying to use the syslog 
!!prog syntax and am running into > problems, before I go to far down the 
rabbit hole of trying to identify > a bug, I would like to make sure that my 
expectations are sane.  I am > try to use syslog.conf with the following 
syntax> >     !!relayd>     *.*     /var/log/relayd>     *.*     
tls4://logginghost:8513>     !*>     <rest of standard syslog.conf>> > When 
relayd generates a log it only is written to the /var/log/relayd > file.  If I 
switch the order, then the log will only be written to > loginghost.> > My 
expectation would be that both destinations would have the log > written.  Am I 
misunderstanding the man page?> > Thanks for any insight or corrections.>       
                      

Reply via email to