Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: ArkanoiD <ark@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 23:43:43 +0400
nuqneH,
Well, does that mean that syslog should be either not reliable (generic
datagram), not portable enough (sdsc), buggy (nsyslogd) or suffering
performance problems (ng) ;-)?
On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 03:26:48PM -0400, Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
ArkanoiD wrote:_______________________________________________
?hecked out if there are any news on sdsc syslog, nothing for last 3 years :-(
Software that is over-complex for a relatively simple problem, deserves to die.
I know a lot of people worked on it (which was part of the problem!) and worked
hard, but - come on - it's only syslog.
mjr.
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: Chuck Swiger
- 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
- From: ArkanoiD
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- From: Marcus J. Ranum
- Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Prev by Date: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Next by Date: RE: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Previous by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Next by thread: Re: [fw-wiz] Appropriate PIX logging level
- Index(es):