On Mon, 9 Feb 1998, Adam P. Harris wrote: > Sure, but I think we could keep our thoughts at the level of "what would > you think is reasonable out of the box". There's a lot of generality; > the baseline and de facto "policy" is what ships w/ sysklogd.
AFAIR sysklogd doesn't have any suggestions about what LOG_LOCAL[0-7] are used for. You mean the unified syslog policy de facto? > Well, yes, I agree, the locally-reserved facility issue is the first > one to solve. Yes. I think LOG_LOCAL[0-7] should be local and entirely available to the local sysadmin (according to Avery). > local2 ppp subsystem > local5 fax subsystem > local0,1,3,4,5,6,7 hands off (I don't know what's going into local0 --- > you seem to be capturing it.) Qpopper 2.2 (both in bo and hamm, as far as I can see the source packages) logs through facility LOG_LOCAL0. > .....A. P. [EMAIL PROTECTED]<URL:http://www.onShore.com/> Fuji^ -- .+'''+. .+'''+. .+'''+. .+'''+. .+'' Kelemen Péter / \ / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] .+' `+...+' `+...+' `+...+' `+...+'
