> On 6 Mar 2022, at 19:38, Peter J. Holzer <hjp-pyt...@hjp.at> wrote: > > On 2022-03-06 18:28:59 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: >>> On 2022-03-05 16:25:38 +0000, Barry Scott wrote: >>> Using the syslog() function means that any platform/distro details are >>> hidden from the user of syslog() and as is the case of macOS it >>> "just works". >> >> That doesn't seem to be case. Philip Bloom reported in >> <CADoNktVgU9DBdBfc5wJe4vhJcTKrdVQjdeUO8eN=bvtw9g4...@mail.gmail.com>, >> that syslog in Python 3.6 broke in OS X Monterey. So even using >> syslog(3) doesn't seem to be safe across upgrades (no, I don't know >> how Apple managed to break this - as I wrote, I don't use OS X). >> >> >>> (I assume, not checked, that the write to the socket does not work >>> because Apple is not implementing the syslog protocol from the RFC). > > I noticed that RFC 5424 describes a very different protocol from RFC > 3164 and was curious which one SysLogHandler implements. > > Surprise: Neither.
So the logging code works by accident… > > It just sends the PRI part and the MSG part. While that neatly sidesteps > the question of which of the two incompatible header formats to use, > it's not a a valid syslog message in either format. > > Obviously Linux accepts this format (the timestamp and the hostname are > kind of redundant anyway when you're using a unix socket). > > I strongly suspect that the OS X syslog daemon got stricter and now > insists on properly formatted messages. Interesting. If I can find a spare hour I can play with this. Barry > > hp > > > -- > _ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality. > |_|_) | | > | | | h...@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing > __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!" > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
