From: Carlos E. R. <rob...@te...> - 2018-10-02 22:42:18
|
On 02/10/2018 21.23, Kamil Jońca wrote: > "Carlos E. R." <> writes: > >> On 02/10/2018 20.03, Kamil Jońca wrote: >>> "Carlos E. R." <> 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. Well, I have never seen a programmer make that error in a released version. I'm sure they know. The message is formed, sent to syslog, or some extra entries are added, like a timestapmp, then printed (or written to file). -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from openSUSE 15.0 (Legolas)) |