From: <kj...@o2...> - 2018-10-02 19:24:01
|
"Carlos E. R." <rob...@te...> writes: > On 02/10/2018 20.03, Kamil Jońca wrote: >> "Carlos E. R." <rob...@te...> writes: >> >>> On 01/10/2018 20.09, Kamil Jońca wrote: >>>> Matthias Andree <mat...@gm...> writes: >>>> >>>> [..] >>>>> >>>>> The consideration is whether this could go into 6.4, or would have to >>>>> wait for 7.0. The log file format is not really specified, so changing >>>>> it isn't breaking any documented interface, just breaking past practice, >>>>> so it might cause some astonishment. Opinions? >>>> >>>> Regardless of these questions I would as NOT to change logging via >>>> syslog. >>> >>> Timestamping via syslog is done by the syslog daemon, not by the >>> application that sends the messages. > > Don't you understand? Fetchmail can not change logging via syslog. Please correct me if I am wrong. 1. So far fetchmail produces "log messages" 2. these messages are identical, in case when logging to file/stderr or syslog. 3. syslog adds timestamp to messages received from fetchmail 4. now we want to extend tetchmail log message with timestamps. 5. so syslog will get messages with timestamps, and adds its own timestamp. 6. so, after adding timestamp to fetchmail messages and logging to syslog we will have TWO timestamps in logs. I think this is ugly, and I kindly ask Mathhias, not to change messages when someone pick "set syslog" option. KJ -- http://stopstopnop.pl/stop_stopnop.pl_o_nas.html If you don't know what game you're playing, don't ask what the score is. |