On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 06:03:57PM +0000, Mark wrote: > You're being childish, Tony. And you're not even reading properly. He never > said 3rd and 4th, in the abstract, aren't consecutive. He did say, however, > that the 3rd and 4th lines of "SPAMD" do not always appear consecutively in > the log. > > Not only that, he is absolutely right, too. There is no guarantee that the > 3rd and 4th line, or any other lines, of a spamd process will appear > consecutively in the log. And if you ever logged something to the syslog > facility yourself, you would immediately know this to be true.
OK, thanks for the support and thanks for acknowleding my fears. Let's not start a flame war here and return to the subject please. I know I can easely hack spamd to provide the kind of logging I need. If possible I'd like to avoid doing so; I'm not fond of managing a local patch when not absolutely necessary. Someone (sorry, I didn't look back) answered the 3rd line is logged before processing the message and the 4th line is logged after processing it. This helps a bit but doesn't explain why the message-ID is left out at that time. As I told at the start of this topic: I'm a new user to the list so maybe this is not the place to ask these questions; if so please direct me to the proper place. Q: Are my concerns about the logging shared by others? 1: lines aren't kept together 2: the PID might not be suitable to filter the information Q: If so, can we agree on a standard that makes it easy to find the information belonging to one message, including sender, recipient and score? cheers, Alex ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
