On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:20:39 -0800, "Crist J. Clark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you want to or need to use network sockets,
# syslogd -a localhost
Should provide the behavior you want.
I.e., no security whatsoever.
-GAWollman
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 12:40:00PM -0500, Garrett Wollman wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 21:20:39 -0800, "Crist J. Clark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you want to or need to use network sockets,
# syslogd -a localhost
Should provide the behavior you want.
I.e., no security whatsoever.
Steve Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it just me or does 'syslogd -s' exhibit just a little bit too
much paranoia about allowing socket connections? I was futzing
with a Perl script that needed to syslog(3) some stuff and after
much hair pulling I realized that 'syslogd -s' didn't even
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:20:39PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
#
# You can write to the /dev/log (usually symlinked to /var/run/log)
# socket with '-s' set.
#
# If you want to or need to use network sockets,
#
# # syslogd -a localhost
#
# Should provide the behavior you want. As you noted
Steve Price [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Aha! I must have read that manpage a dozen times and I didn't catch
on, but if I do this it works like I would expect even with '-s'.
...and even with -ss, which you might as well use unless you intend to
log *to* remote hosts, or are sufficiently
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 11:39:37PM -0600, Steve Price wrote:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2001 at 09:20:39PM -0800, Crist J. Clark wrote:
#
# You can write to the /dev/log (usually symlinked to /var/run/log)
# socket with '-s' set.
#
# If you want to or need to use network sockets,
#
# # syslogd
