I've just committed a couple of changes to the CVS tree, relating to the new authorization checks for snmptrapd.
Firstly, I've extended the initial 'snmpd' warning, so that a similar message is displayed if there are no access settings configured. Secondly, I've also added a warning whenever an incoming trap is dropped (assuming no access configuration). This seems more helpful than just dropping such traps silently. Of course, if the user *has* configured which traps to accept/reject, then this doesn't apply. Finally, I've tweaked the "accept everything" configuration to recognise the directive "acceptAllTraps" as well as Wes' original "disableAuthorization". This feels more immediately meaningful to a typical network admin, IMO. Thomas has suggested that perhaps this should be "acceptAllNotifications" instead. That's certainly a more technically accurate name, though I personally prefer the one I chose (naturally, since that's why I chose it!) Anyway - what do people think? "acceptAllTraps", "acceptAllNotifications", or neither (i.e. just stick with "disableAuthorization"). I'm planning to attack the trapd documentation over the next day or so, so I can document whatever we agree on. But we might as well try to come to some decision now, *before* we start cutting proper release candidates. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click _______________________________________________ Net-snmp-coders mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/net-snmp-coders
