Re: logcheck struggle

From: Richard Hector (richard_at_walnut.gen.nz)
Date: 10/01/04

  • Next message: Ralph Katz: "Re: "resolving host""
    Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 12:26:04 +1200
    To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
    
    

    On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 10:42:38AM +0200, Pim Bliek wrote:
     
    > On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:32:04 +1200, Richard Hector
    > <richard@walnut.gen.nz> wrote:
    > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 11:35:57PM +0200, Pim Bliek wrote:
    > > > Hi All,
    > > >
    > > > I am no regular expression guru, and I am having severe difficulties
    > > > adjusting logcheck to my needs (on a Sid system).
    > > >
    > > > I get the following stuff mailed by logcheck from my syslog which I
    > > > don't want to see:
    > > > Sep 29 23:02:02 srv1 postfix/smtpd[29293]: _sasl_plugin_load failed on
    > > > sasl_auxprop_plug_init for plugin: sql
    > > > Sep 29 23:02:02 srv1 postfix/smtpd[29293]: sql_select option missing
    > > > Sep 29 23:02:02 srv1 postfix/smtpd[29293]: auxpropfunc error no
    > > > mechanism available
    > > >
    > > > I created the following rules at the bottom of the postfix file in
    > > > /etc/ignore.d.server/:
    > > > ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/lmtp\[[0-9]+\]:
    > > > _sasl_plugin_load failed on sasl_auxprop_plug_init for plugin: sql$
    > > > ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/lmtp\[[0-9]+\]: sql_select
    > > > option missing$
    > > > ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/lmtp\[[0-9]+\]: auxpropfunc
    > > > error no mechanism available$
    > > >
    > > > I got the ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/lmtp\[[0-9]+\]:
    > > > part from other lines in the same file.
    > >
    > > You're looking for lmtp instead of smtpd - are there other lines you
    > > could work from instead?
    > >
    > > Also, you may find that the first and last lines will come through
    > > anyway in the "Possible Security Violations" section, because they
    > > contain evil words like "fail" and "error" - you'll need to edit other
    > > files to stop those, but do it carefully - it's easy to just ignore
    > > everything by mistake.
    >
    > It was too late yesterday LOL. Off course it was smtpd ;). Also, I was
    > not aware of the extra rules in /etc/logcheck/violations.d! Stupid,
    > but I did not think of it. I commented out "failed" there and now it
    > doesn't show anymore! Now let's hope there are no other serious things
    > with "failed" :).

    That's what I meant by "it's easy to just ignore everything by mistake".

    Better would be to put the "failed" line back in violations.d, and put
    the whole line you've now fixed in violations.ignore.d so that it only
    ignores "failed" in that particular case.

    You also want to check whether a comment is a valid concept in these
    files - I don't think it is. What you're now (probably) asking it to
    warn you about any line containing "# failed", which admittedly is
    unlikely to occur, but it's better to know what you're getting.

    > But I had logcheck running for months now and didn't
    > get any other, so I guess I should be fine.

    But the idea of logcheck is to tell you about the unusual stuff -
    otherwise you might as well get rid of it.

    Richard

    -- 
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org 
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
    

  • Next message: Ralph Katz: "Re: "resolving host""

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: How printf() works???????
      ... unplonked "Just Richard" on a whim, ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... It was an honest correction to an honest ... whole to relax its topicality restrictions somewhat. ...
      (comp.lang.c)
    • Re: How printf() works???????
      ... Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false, ... Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure. ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF riding in on ...
      (comp.lang.c)
    • Re: How printf() works???????
      ... Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... What he said to you about your compiler is beside the ... Robbie came flying in telling me my ...
      (comp.lang.c)
    • Re: Chez Watt: Re: Manufacture vs. Artifact?
      ... Not true - I have voted for evolutionists who made amusingly ridiculous ... problem is that there are precious few nominations to choose from that are ... Again you claim this was a mistake by Richard. ...
      (talk.origins)
    • Re: How printf() works???????
      ... Richard Heathfield writes: ... Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. ... It was an honest correction to an honest ... I think is unlikely to spot on re-reading the reason that their ...
      (comp.lang.c)