Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: ArkanoiD <ark@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 19:59:31 +0400
Сhecked out if there are any news on sdsc syslog, nothing for last 3 years :-(
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 04:42:51PM -0400, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
_______________________________________________
Well, it could be worse! It could use BEEP. ;) But, yes, I agree, syslog-ng is
very "feature rich"
firewall-wizards mailing list
firewall-wizards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- References:
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: David Lang
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Prev by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] the infamous "static" versus "nat"
- Next by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] Ping between PIX remote peers
- Previous by thread: [fw-wiz] minirsyslogd (was Appropriate PIX logging level)
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Index(es):
