Are you asking more for something like:
2000/07/31 06:02:10.42 (GMT+05)
This has always been the date format I've prefered ... its sortable (as the year
comes first -- although its quite narrow-minded of me to not allow for 5 digit
dates), its human-readable, and quite parsable. The decimal portion after the time
allows for sub-second time measurement. I'm pretty sure adding a function to your
copy of multilog/whatever that converted from the tai64n format to something more
like the above wouldn't be that hard.
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> > Would you prefer the splogger format (to wit, Unix timestamp with
> > fractional part) instead? I'd do anything to use a logging format
> > that avoids timezone dependency, and multilog/tai64n seems to do
> > that job well.
>
> You mean this:
> Jul 31 06:02:10 gw qmail: 965023330.820010 status: local 1/10 remote 0/50
> ?
>
> It's better than tai64n, because syslog puts a real timestamp on, but
> that big chunk of meaningless numbers in the middle wastes a lot of
> the line and adds no useful information. It's what I'm using now on
> my main server, but it's quite wasteful and annoying. (But
> qmailanalog expects it)
