On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 16:24:54 -0500, Jake Vickers wrote:
> I have to agree. The logging in QMail plain sucks. It's almost made
> me switch to Postfix a few times. Unfortunately, I don't see any way
> of correlating the messages without modifying the patches, since
> there is no common discrimination between the logs.
Alexey writes that the logs generated by QT are different than "normal" qmail
because of all the different patches. I wonder if "normal" qmail *does* have a
means of correlating the messages that is somehow broken in QT? And if so does
this mean qmail-track will not work with QT (just as qmailanalog does not work)?
> What a message is
> called (handle) in one log is something completely different in
> another log. If someone modified the various patches (a new patch, I
> think) to keep something common between the messages (even just a
> number that starts at 1 and increments) and found some way for the
> next daemon to keep track of this number and splice it into the logs
> I think we'd have something really good here.
That would be great. But still, qmail-track seems to be able to do it without
any log-enhancing patches. How?
> Otherwise you're at
> what I sent to Quinn a while back:
> cat * | grep [EMAIL PROTECTED] | tai64nlocal
> between the logs to find messages that come in at roughly the same
> times.
With a sort thrown in:
cat * | grep [EMAIL PROTECTED] | sort | tai64nlocal
>I know this has given me problems in the past when multiple
> messages come in for the same recipient at the same time (high volume
> machine, LWQ based, not even Toaster). Not a solution, but my 2 cents.
Quinn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
QmailToaster hosted by: VR Hosted <http://www.vr.org>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
