On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 01:46:11AM +0100, Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 January 2004 02:08 CET Malte S. Stretz wrote:
> > On Wednesday 14 January 2004 01:38 CET Justin Mason wrote:
> > > OK -- one problem here -- we shouldn't make that conditional if
> > > possible, as it will confuse log parsers. Is there a way we can avoid
> > > that?
> >
> > Hmmm... changing the log format will probably break the log parsers
> > anyway, I should have thoought about that. Maybe that's why I chose to
> > put the stuff inside brackets intuitively ;-) But it just came into my
> > mind that the MID is replaced with "(unknown)" if none was given... Hm.
>
> Ok, I changed this (r6171), it's now
> logmsg = ("processing" | "checking")
> WSP "message" WSP (("<" msgid ">") | "(unknown)")
> [ WSP "aka" WSP "<" resent-msgid ">" ]
> WSP "for" WSP (uname | "(unknown)") ":" uid
> "."
>
> So parsing the log line is more or less like the trace headers: You've got a
> keyword (currently "message", "aka" (anybody got a better name for this?)
> and "for") followed by a space and the value. The value is either anything
> between a matching pair of brackets ("<...>", "(...)", "[...]"), a quoted
> string or some chars (without a space of course). That should be enough
> forward-compatible for any reasonable parser. I think I'll put a note about
> this into some doc.Someone should update sa-stats.pl accordingly. Malte, would you like to? I can do it if you don't want to. -- Duncan Findlay
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
