On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 15:02, Rainer Gerhards <[email protected]> wrote: > Mmmh... I guess we are misunderstandig here. I talk about rule*sets*, not > rules (within rulesets). Or I get the sample wrong. I would creates this > scenario as follows: > > <ruleset name=rs> > <rule...><action type=db...></rule> > <rule...><action type=omfile file=worm...> </rule> > </ruleset> > > <input type=relp ruleset=rs ... > > <input type=udp ruleset=rs ... > > <input type=tcp ruleset=rs ... > > > Note that each input has exactly one ruleset whereas the (single) ruleset is > used by three inputs. Thus we have 1:n rather than m:n. > > Misunderstanding or did I overlook something?
Probably not, but assuming each individual rule could have independent selectors (only send high-urgency messages to the database), I'm most likely just not grasping what you intend by m:n. Then again, my uses are relatively simple and at a cursory glance the current proposal more than fits them. RB _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com
