RE: [logs] Syslog payload format

From: Andrew Ross (andrewat_private)
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 15:44:58 PST

  • Next message: Jeremy Mates: "[logs] Re: swatchrc emailing works!!!!"

    >It would be nice if we could agree on one thing. I'm having trouble
    >seeing the motivation for retaining the [deficient, partial]
    >timestamp of classic syslog in the name of "interop", when we're
    >defining a protocol which is profoundly not interoperable with it
    >(TCP -vs- UDP). Rather than wasting space on a useless timestamp
    >then putting the useful one in the "payload", let's just put a
    >useful timestamp on the front of the messages.
    You have my vote on that one. Since we are going to have to create new
    code to send/receive via TCP, why not do it properly from the start?
    LogAnalysis mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 08 2003 - 08:49:01 PST