On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:40:48AM +0200, Hanspeter Kunz wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:25 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> > also sprach Hanspeter Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.21.1017 +0100]:
> > > I didn't mean that the submission rules are unspecific. What
> > > I meant is, that the logch
also sprach Hanspeter Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.21.1040 +0100]:
> Ok, if there is no technical reason, why every rule should end
> with $ I would suggest to change the rules then. To have .*$ at
> the end of a rule really makes no sense to me.
I think you're ready to join the development t
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:25 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Hanspeter Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.21.1017 +0100]:
> > I didn't mean that the submission rules are unspecific. What
> > I meant is, that the logcheck rules I submitted are unspecific,
> > because it is their purpose to
also sprach Hanspeter Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.21.1017 +0100]:
> I didn't mean that the submission rules are unspecific. What
> I meant is, that the logcheck rules I submitted are unspecific,
> because it is their purpose to match a lot of different lines
> (with the same straing pattern t
On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 10:01 +0100, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Hanspeter Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.21.0853 +0100]:
> > It is a good thing to have rules that are as specific as possible.
> > But they should only be as specific as needed, don't you agree?
> > (or am I missing somethi
also sprach Hanspeter Kunz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007.09.21.0853 +0100]:
> It is a good thing to have rules that are as specific as possible.
> But they should only be as specific as needed, don't you agree?
> (or am I missing something here?)
>
> The rules above are unspecific (to some extent) bec
6 matches
Mail list logo
