Not for the draft, again: it gets even more problematic if logs are used as evidence in court. Without going into all the details (what I am not qualified at all), the reliability of the logging system (as well as the authenticity) can and will probably be questioned in court. If now a single line can alter the meaning of the evidence, a transport that can experience loss of message during regular operations may be totally unsuitable for use inside a legal-compliant logging system (different parts of the world have obviously different legislation). So I find it most useful to hint users about potential problems that arise out of the transport - especially if there is a common misconception.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:18 PM > To: Rainer Gerhards > Cc: Joseph Salowey (jsalowey); syslog > Subject: RE: [Syslog] Subject Name verification policy > > I just brought up disaster because I use it as a good way to separate > users who do understand the issues from those who do not. I hadn't > thought of the auditor case. It is possible for a naive user to be > asked > about this by an auditor. > > Kind Regards, > > Robert Horn | Agfa HealthCare > Research Scientist | HE/Technology Office > T +1 978 897 4860 > > Agfa HealthCare Corporation, 100 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, NJ, > 07660-2199, United States > http://www.agfa.com/healthcare/ > Click on link to read important disclaimer: > http://www.agfa.com/healthcare/maildisclaimer _______________________________________________ Syslog mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/syslog
