; -Original Message-
> From: Andrew Ross [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 4:59 PM
> To: 'Rainer Gerhards'
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Glenn Mansfield Keeni'
> Subject: RE: SyslogMIB Issue-#6
>
>
> Cool.
>
> If we wo
to.
Apart from that, it could all be free form text.
Comments?
Cheers
Andrew
-Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2004 11:06 p.m.
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: SyslogMIB Issue-#6
On the ipaq, thus brief...
Yes, this would be
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rainer Gerhards
Sent: Saturday, 31 January 2004 3:20 a.m.
To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: SyslogMIB Issue-#6
Sorry for the late follow up...
I am not sure if we really desire this. As of my knowledge, most
existing syslogds
--Original Message-
From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 9:20 AM
To: Glenn Mansfield Keeni; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: SyslogMIB Issue-#6
Sorry for the late follow up...
I am not sure if we really desire this. As of my knowledge, most
existing sysl
Sorry for the late follow up...
I am not sure if we really desire this. As of my knowledge, most
existing syslogds have far more sophisticated rules than the stock
syslogd implementtions with just filtering on facility and severity. And
they have, because there is a customer demand.
You now can a
