Logcheck devel - Sep 2007 - Bug#443908: /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/bind: [bind] unexpected RCODE (NOTIMP)

Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.2.61
Severity: wishlist
File: /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/bind

After #437891, I got yet another new "unexpected RCODE", this time
"NOTIMP".  As I was starting to get pissed off, I copied the whole
list
out of lib/dns/result.c, in an attempt to put an end to my headache.

If you insist on using an enumeration instead of ".*", here's the
complete list (aside from NOERROR, obviously):

  ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ named\[[0-9]+\]: unexpected RCODE
\((FORMERR|SERVFAIL|NXDOMAIN|NOTIMP|REFUSED|YXDOMAIN|YXRRSET|NXRRSET|NOTAUTH|NOTZONE|BADVERS|<rcode
[[:digit:]]+>|[[:digit:]]+)\) resolving '[^[:space:]]+':
[.[:digit:]]+#[0-9]+$

(Remember that this is both a violations and a normal ignore rule.)

The source sets undefined rcodes such as 15 as "<rcode 15>", but
they
show up as merely "15" in my log.  The answer is too deep in the code
for me to figure out, so I stuck both in the rule.

For curiosity's sake, I tried to find if there were rcodes that would
never be unexpected, but there doesn't seem any common denominator.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.21-2-k7 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=en_CA.utf-8, LC_CTYPE=en_CA.utf-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

-- debconf information excluded

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 06:33:07PM -0400, Fr?d?ric Bri?re
wrote:
> Package: logcheck-database
> Version: 1.2.61
> Severity: wishlist
> File: /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/bind
> 
> After #437891, I got yet another new "unexpected RCODE", this
time
> "NOTIMP".  As I was starting to get pissed off, I copied the
whole list
> out of lib/dns/result.c, in an attempt to put an end to my headache.
> 
> If you insist on using an enumeration instead of ".*", here's
the
> complete list (aside from NOERROR, obviously):
> 
>   ^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ named\[[0-9]+\]: unexpected RCODE
\((FORMERR|SERVFAIL|NXDOMAIN|NOTIMP|REFUSED|YXDOMAIN|YXRRSET|NXRRSET|NOTAUTH|NOTZONE|BADVERS|<rcode
[[:digit:]]+>|[[:digit:]]+)\) resolving '[^[:space:]]+':
[.[:digit:]]+#[0-9]+$
Aren't some of these worth reporting?  eg. REFUSED and NOTAUTH are
probably okay for a workstation.
> For curiosity's sake, I tried to find if there were rcodes that would
> never be unexpected, but there doesn't seem any common denominator.
The bind message says "Unexpected" so should these really be filtered?

Thanks
Justin