Quoting Kriss Andsten ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) on Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 12:14:11AM +0000:
> > > Also the lack of timeZONE info in the timestamp is a common gripe. It
> > > might be worthwhile to add a short field with this info i.e:
> > > 991019_12:54:02_GMT+8.
>
> Question? What's wrong with sending in UTC, and munging into whatever on
> the recieving end? (Anything that makes a payload going over the network
> longer without a rather good reason is -evil-)
YES!
YYYYMMMDDhhmmss should be small enough, and even readable enough.
> > > * The protocols must be simple enough to build support into
> > > firewalls. [...snip...]
> > Agreed. Simplicity is always a precious goal.
>
> 'built into firewalls'.. Is there -any- idea what so ever having
> application specific support rather than letting data on port thisandthat
> (1492, maybe? ;-) through various firewalls? Heck, let any semi arbritary
> data through a firewall, and you can tunnel anything over it. VPN's over
> ident(auth) is quite possible - veeeeery slow, but they work. To make a
> long story short, I doubt there's any idea putting a lot of work into
> making it 'firewall friendly', when packet filters will do the trick - or
> wont. If they dont, application proxies wont help either.
Either the syslogd on the firewall acts as a relay, or the protocol is easy
enough so that rinetd and other simple relay proxies can be used.
cheers
afx
--
SuSE Muenchen GmbH Phone: +49-89-42769-0
Stahlgruberring 28 Fax: +49-89-42017701
D-81829 Muenchen, Germany
May the Source be with you!
