On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Marcin Wisnicki wrote: > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:51:06 +1100, Ian Smith wrote: > > > On Mon, 28 Mar 2011, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 06:14:20AM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Old Synopsis: Ipfw stops to check bags for compliance with the > > > > rules, letting everything Rules New Synopsis: [ipfw] ipfw stops to > > > > check bags for compliance with the rules, letting everything Rules > > > > > > > > Responsible-Changed-From-To: freebsd-standards->freebsd-ipfw > > > > Responsible-Changed-By: linimon > > > > Responsible-Changed-When: Mon Mar 28 06:13:10 UTC 2011 > > > > Responsible-Changed-Why: > > > > reclassify, although I do not think there is enough information > > > > here to proceed. > > > > > > interesting use of the term 'bag' for 'packet'! > > > > Even with that cleared up, I can't make out what it may have to do with > > syslogging .. perhaps one of our Russian speakers could intermediate? > > > > I think it means that if newsyslog rotates /var/log/security then ipfw > warnings are not logged anymore ;)
I've tried imagining how that could happen, without success - unless /var/log/security somehow wasn't truncated by newsyslog on rotation? % grep security /etc/*syslog.conf /etc/syslog.conf:security.* /var/log/security /etc/newsyslog.conf:/var/log/security 640 21 500 * J > I haven't seen such behaviour myself and that file is handled by syslog > just like many others. +1. Smells a bit like permissions .. from thousands of miles away :) cheers, Ian _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ipfw To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
