On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:01:24PM -0500, Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:59:54PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:04:34PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Hi,
I see it many times before, but never take a time to post about it.
Miroslav Lachman 000.f...@quip.cz writes:
I did a quick test where I changed Feb 15 01:52:06 to
2012-02-15 01:52:06 format.
The correct format is 2012-02-20T01:23:45.6789+01:00
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no
___
The correct format is 2012-02-20T01:23:45.6789+01:00
You guys are aware that RFC 5424 is a proposed standard I trust? By
being proposed it is not a standard, at least not yet.
Perhaps the differences in human-readability of the proposed timestamp,
or the fact that it has variable field types
Gary Palmer wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 02:01:24PM -0500, Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:59:54PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:04:34PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Hi,
I see it many times before, but never take a time to
On 17.02.2012 20:48, Roger Marquis wrote:
and difficult to change without breaking more than it fixes. The current
syslog syntax timestamp has been reliable now for what, 25+ years? I
don't personally see any measurable ROI from changing it. YMMV of
course.
I really understand the concern,
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com wrote:
I don't personally recall a time when everything else wasn't logging the
year, in one format or another. That's not to imply that syslogs
shouldn't be distinguishable by year but the question seems to be where
the year
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 04:35:20PM -0500, Robert Simmons wrote:
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM, Roger Marquis marq...@roble.com wrote:
I don't personally recall a time when everything else wasn't logging the
year, in one format or another. That's not to imply that syslogs
shouldn't be
I re-add list to CC.
Gregory Orange wrote:
Hi Miroslav,
I don't know if this message really contributes anything to the list, so
I'll email you directly.
On 17/02/12 01:04, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
I see it many times before, but never take a time to post about it.
Well, thank you for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/16/2012 08:08 PM, Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
5424 yet. Almost complete implementation was done in NetBSD in
that regard in 2008. NetBSD before RFC 5424 changes has had pretty
similar syslogd source, so if one could analyze and port that
changes
Sergey Kandaurov wrote:
In IETF this RFC is marked obsolete and replaced with RFC 5424 with
different timestamp format in ISO 8601 form. FreeBSD doesn't implement
5424 yet. Almost complete implementation was done in NetBSD in that
regard in 2008. NetBSD before RFC 5424 changes has had pretty
So, can't you just do this?
1) Make it an option.
2) If it isn't set, keep the output like it is now.
3) Set it by default in new installs, with a comment above it that it
might break things. That way people upgrading get a warning, too, and
can keep it the way it has been if they'd like.
On
1) Make it an option.
2) If it isn't set, keep the output like it is now.
3) Set it by default in new installs, with a comment above it that it
might break things. That way people upgrading get a warning, too, and
can keep it the way it has been if they'd like.
You can, but it'd be like
Hi,
I see it many times before, but never take a time to post about it.
Scrips in /etc/periodic are grepping logs for yesterday date, but
without specifying year (because some logs do not have year logged).
This results in false positive alerts in security e-mails from our
lightly loaded
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:04:34PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Hi,
I see it many times before, but never take a time to post about it.
Scrips in /etc/periodic are grepping logs for yesterday date, but
without specifying year (because some logs do not have year logged).
This results
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:04:34PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Hi,
I see it many times before, but never take a time to post about it.
Scrips in /etc/periodic are grepping logs for yesterday date, but
without specifying year (because some logs do not have year logged).
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:59:54PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Glen Barber wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 06:04:34PM +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Hi,
I see it many times before, but never take a time to post about it.
Scrips in /etc/periodic are grepping logs for yesterday date,
16 matches
Mail list logo
