Philip Hazel <ph10@???> writes:
> On 7 Jul 1998, Harald Meland wrote:
> > But, there is not much support for syslog(3) in Exim 1.92. Is there
> > some reason for this?
>
> Only that I didn't consider it.
>
> > IMHO, logging directly to local disk should be a feature orthogonal to
> > logging through syslog. I can see logging to local disk being a
> > reasonable default for most systems using Exim today, but I , for one,
> > would really like to have "proper" syslog logging.
>
> I will add this item to the New Wish List, which I am planning on
> publishing for comment once 2.00 is released and settled down.
The only problem with this is that it's all very well massaging
mainlog into syslog, but what does one do with things like rejectlog?
One could specify that a differing syslog facility priority (and
perhaps facility, too), but it would still be difficult to get the
same level of logging that one does now, and it would all be jumbled
together.
There is the additional problem, that for a busy machine, syslog is
known to be an unreliable protocol and does drop some messages when it
gets a bit busy. So, if exim were to move to syslog (which overall I
think is a good thing - it does make log maintenance easier), then
there should at least remain an option to direct it to a local file.
Actually, we would need to keep the existing logging format anyway to
make some sense of spool/msglog. You can't do that with plain syslog.
--
``If make doesn't do what you expect it to, it's a good chance the
makefile is wrong.'' -- Adam de Boor
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
