The postfix rules of logcheck are a total mess and I would like to
redo them from scratch for etch. Given that etch will have postfix
2.3 and only 2.3, is there any reason why I would need to keep the
2.1 and 2.2 rules around?
Cheers,
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"die menschen dr?ngen sich zum lichte, nicht um besser zu sehen,
sondern um besser zu gl?nzen."
- friedrich nietzsche
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20061006/f6a711e2/attachment.pgp
also sprach martin f krafft <madduck at debian.org> [2006.10.06.1639 +0200]:> The postfix rules of logcheck are a total mess and I would like to > redo them from scratch for etch. Given that etch will have postfix > 2.3 and only 2.3, is there any reason why I would need to keep the > 2.1 and 2.2 rules around?I supposed the same question applies to other programmes, like dovecot... -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "driving with a destination is like having sex to have children" -- backwater wayne miller -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature (GPG/PGP) Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20061006/8f8962be/attachment.pgp