From owner-freebsd-security  Wed Sep  6 22:00:03 1995
Return-Path: security-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) id WAA10668
          for security-outgoing; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 22:00:03 -0700
Received: from gate.sinica.edu.tw (gate.sinica.edu.tw [140.109.14.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id VAA10643
          for <freebsd-security@freebsd.org>; Wed, 6 Sep 1995 21:59:57 -0700
Received: by gate.sinica.edu.tw (5.x/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA11413; Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:54:22 +0800
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 1995 12:54:22 +0800 (CST)
From: Brian Tao <taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw>
To: Tom Samplonius <tom@uniserve.com>
Cc: freebsd-security@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Do we *really* need logger(1)? 
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950906183531.25467B-100000@haven.uniserve.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950907125322.22792F-100000@gate>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: security-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, Tom Samplonius wrote:
> 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.

    Oh, forgot about that bit.  :)  It even says so right there in the
syslog.conf man page.  *sigh*  :-/
--
Brian ("Though this be madness, yet there is method in't") Tao
taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw <-- work ........ play --> taob@io.org