From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Sep  6 18:40:01 1995
Return-Path: security-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id SAA02936
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:40:01 -0700
Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id SAA02930
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:39:59 -0700
Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <31047>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:41:47 +0100
Date: 	Wed, 6 Sep 1995 18:41:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com>
To: Brian Tao <taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw>
cc: Bill Trost <trost@cloud.rain.com>, freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Do we *really* need logger(1)? 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950907083820.22792E-100000@gate>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950906183531.25467B-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: security-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 7 Sep 1995, Brian Tao wrote:

>     syslog() and syslogd are the real problems.  What use is there for a
> syslog service on port 514?  I don't see why it should even bother listening
> to a network port.  It should only accept input from /dev/[k]log. 

  Logging events to another machine is _very_ useful.  Especially for 
systems (ex. routers) that have no permanent storage for events, or when 
you need to collect logging information for large number of hosts.

Tom