IIRC, the doc is wrong (it was written when the final things was not utilized). But I can check details.
Currently I am spending most of my time with packaging, as nobody ever really took up this task and we had ample of problems because of it in the past couple of month. It requires quite some time for me as I need to learn many new things. ;-) Rainer El jue., 2 jul. 2020 a las 1:57, David Lang via rsyslog (<[email protected]>) escribió: > > I thouth the SyslogProtocol23 format matched the rfc5424 format, but in > looking > at the documentation, it says it's "quite close" but not exactly the same > because rsyslog had it in production for a long time before rfc5424 was > finalized. > > What is the difference between the two, and should we make a RSYSLOG-RFC5424 > format template that exactly complies? (or if the protocol23 format does > comply, > should we make a new name that points at the same definition so that there is > a > name that makes it clear that it complies) > > David Lang > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > https://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog > http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ > What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards > NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of > sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T > LIKE THAT. _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list https://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
