No SYSLOG No Mail Scanned

[Glenn Steen]

On 05/04/06, Res <res at ausics.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006, Glenn Steen wrote:
>
> > That's one of the classics.... What to do when logging dies on you:
> > Create another log entry to that effect?
>
> That is silly, i dont give a toss about syslog running or not, at 100

Exactly.

> megs a day I sure as hell have better things to do then look at logs lol,
> but coz syslog dies, why the hell should mail cease to be processed because
> of it.

Why not? It got your attention;-):-).

> > So what do you expect MS to do? Just blithely move on? I'm not sure
>
> keep processing mail
>
> > that's a good idea... As it is, you a) notice that mail has "stopped
> > flowing", and b) can rather trivially discover why.
>
> This creates  problems, maybe on a MS box that processes 2-300 emails a
> day thats fine, but when you do that much every minute thats just not
> acceptable.

Syslog is pretty stable usually, so something making it die would (in
my experience) be an indication that you have a "serious" problem.
I'm sure it's acceptable to you to not keep very good track of
individual messages, nor of errors etc... But to some (like me) it
really matters... No matter if the throughput is 200 messages per day,
hour or minute. But that's just me, I guess:-)

> > What made syslog die? There are a fair amount of things depending on
>
> unknown at this time
>
> > syslog being there, apart from MS:-).
>
> dedicated  mail server  (sendmail, MS and clamav) , nothing else died :)
>
>
> --
> Cheers
> Res
>

--
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se