On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Kang, Joseph S. wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:10 PM
> > To: Oban Lambie
> > Cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Memory issues have forced me back to 2.64
> >
> > BTW could you open a bug on the SpamAssassin bugzilla about
> > that? I think we should silence those messages, as yours is about the
> > 50th question about those ;)
>
> Actually, could you make that a configurable silence? Not sure how you were
> planning on approaching this so I'm just guessing. It might be nice to see
> on request. But, yes, silencing them would be nice for "normal" operations.
>
> -Joe K.
It should be easy to simply syslog those kinds of messages at the
LOG_DEBUG level. Then people can configure their system to either
log DEBUG messages or ignore them (log INFO level messages).
I have our system set up to log facility MAIL to two files, one
at level INFO for long-term transaction recording and one at DEBUG
that goes into a short-term rolling log so to be able to easily
monitor day-to-day operations with out chewing up massive amounts
of disk space. ;)
--
Dave Funk University of Iowa
<dbfunk (at) engineering.uiowa.edu> College of Engineering
319/335-5751 FAX: 319/384-0549 1256 Seamans Center
Sys_admin/Postmaster/cell_admin Iowa City, IA 52242-1527
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Better is not better, 'standard' is better. B{
