Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "Bug#475553: not fixable with current logcheck"
2008 Jul 21
1
merging violations.ignore.d/logcheck-* into ignore.d.*/*
Hi guys, now that violations.d/logcheck is empty,
violations.ignore.d/logcheck-* are useless and many messages that
were previously elevated and filtered there now turn up as system
events. Thus, I went ahead and merged violations.ignore.d/logcheck-*
into ignore.d.*/* in the viol-merge branch.
http://git.debian.org/?p=logcheck/logcheck.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/viol-merge
Unless I hear
2006 Jul 08
2
building the logcheck package from SVN
apt-get install svn-buildpackage
cat <<_eof >> ~/.svn-buildpackage.conf
svn-lintian
svn-linda
svn-move
_eof
mkdir logcheck; cd logcheck
svn co svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/logcheck/logcheck/trunk
cd trunk
svn-buildpackage -k<your key ID> -rfakeroot
man svn-buildpackage for more. Nice, huh?
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck at debian.org>
: :' :
2006 Jul 03
0
Re: postfix logcheck
also sprach Jamie L. Penman-Smithson <lists at silverdream.org> [2006.07.02.0012 +0200]:
> >As far as I can tell, Postfix adds extended status codes, so instead
> >of "250", you now get "250 2.0.0".
>
> Most of the rules have been updated to include these. If you find
> any which have not been, file a bug.
Are you sure? If I look at e.g.
2006 Jul 10
0
Re : Please update debconf PO translation for the package logcheck 1.2.47
Hi there,
My updated Vietnamese translation is attached. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vi.po
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 6969 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/logcheck-devel/attachments/20060710/4703d02c/attachment.obj
-------------- next part --------------
Regards,
Clytie Siddall
2006 Feb 11
1
Bug#352337: please tighten permissions on /etc/logcheck
Package: logcheck
Severity: wishlist
I see no reason why /etc/logcheck should have any more permissions
than 0750. Please consider removing access rights from 'other'.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (600, 'testing'), (98, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
2006 Feb 22
2
Bug#353962: integrate courier file in logcheck-database
Package: courier-imap-ssl,logcheck-database
Severity: wishlist
Please move /etc/logcheck/*/courier to the courier packages and out
of logcheck-database.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers stable
APT policy: (700, 'stable'), (600, 'testing'), (98, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Shell: /bin/sh linked
2006 Jul 07
0
Bug#377276: "Did not receive identification string" warning reappeared
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.2.45
Severity: normal
Tags: patch pending confirmed
My bad, sorry.
--- rulefiles/linux/ignore.d.server/ssh 6 Jul 2006 10:16:41 -0000 1.18
+++ rulefiles/linux/ignore.d.server/ssh 7 Jul 2006 19:35:19 -0000
@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@
^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ sshd\[[0-9]+\]: refused connect from [:[:alnum:].]+ \([:[:alnum:].]+\)$
^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11}
2007 Sep 22
0
dhclient: parse_option_buffer: option ... larger than buffer
Lately, I've been getting messages of the form
dhclient: parse_option_buffer: option unknown-177 (65) larger than
buffer.
from logcheck. dhclient has not been updated, so this is likely
a change in the configuration of my ISP.
As the logcheck maintainer, I now wonder what I should do with
those. In general, I tend to think that ignoring such warnings is
safe because the software caught
2006 Jul 04
1
no such user
I have rules like this on my servers:
^\w{3} [ :[:digit:]]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ proftpd\[[[:digit:]]+\]:
[._[:alnum:]-]+ \([._[:alnum:]-]+\[[[:digit:].]{7,15}\]\) (- )USER
[-_.[:alnum:]]+: no such user found from [._[:alnum:]-]+
\[[[:digit:].]{7,15}\]\ to [[:digit:].]{7,15}:21$
basically, I just don't care about logins as nonexistent users,
I get so many of those that I don't even
2009 Sep 13
1
helping out on logcheck
Hi,
I'm quite a fan of logcheck and have been using it since setting up my
sites, and I recently saw madduck's call for help on logcheck at
debaday.[0] How can I help?
[0]
http://debaday.debian.net/2009/07/19/logcheck-brilliantly-simple-log-monitoring/
P.S. Please CC me on replies, thanks!
--
Zak B. Elep -- 1486 7957 454D E529 E4F1 F75E 5787 B1FD FA53 851D
I like the idea of 256
2006 Jul 03
0
Bug#376533: updated violations.ignore.d/postfix file for postfix 2.3
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.2.44
Severity: minor
Tags: patch
Please change the following line in
violations.ignore.d/logcheck-postfix:
-^\w{3} [ :0-9]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ postfix/smtp\[[0-9]+\]: [[:upper:]0-9]+: to=<[^[:space:]]+>, relay=[._[:alnum:]-]+\[[0-9.]{7,15}\], delay=[0-9]+, status=(deferred|bounced) \(host [._[:alnum:]-]+\[[0-9.]{7,15}\] said: [45][0-9][0-9] .* \(in
2006 Jul 03
0
Bug#376464: ignore SSH disconnects
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.2.44
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
violations.ignore.d/local-ssh
^\w{3} [ :[:digit:]]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ sshd\[[[:digit:]]+\]: fatal: Write failed: Broken pipe$
^\w{3} [ :[:digit:]]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ sshd\[[[:digit:]]+\]: fatal: Write failed: Connection timed out$
ignore.d/local-ssh
^\w{3} [ :[:digit:]]{11} [._[:alnum:]-]+ sshd\[[[:digit:]]+\]:
2008 May 15
3
Bug#481306: logcheck-database: Request for new rule: "syslog-ng : Configuration reload"
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.2.63
Severity: wishlist
Hi,
Can you add rule to filter out following messages:
System Events
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
May 15 07:44:48 niko syslog-ng[21911]: Configuration reload request
received, reloading configuration;
Best regards
Andrei Emeltchenko
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (990, 'testing'),
2006 Jul 03
1
New logcheck committer
Martin F. Krafft (madduck) has been added to the project.
P.S. I'd like to get a release out sometime next week.
--
Todd Troxell
http://rapidpacket.com/~xtat
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
2009 Feb 11
1
where to submit new logcheck rules?
Hi,
I've got a few logcheck ignore.d rules that I'd like to submit, one
example is sqlgrey. /usr/share/doc/logcheck/README.maintainer talks
about shipping the rules inside the package itself, so I could file a
request with sqlgrey.
However, that doesn't work because of course I don't have all the
packages I use on my network installed on my loghost. In fact, I believe
that
2009 Nov 06
2
Bug#554828: logcheck: Please include rules for amd (automount daemon from am-utils package)
Package: logcheck
Version: 1.3.3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Ali Saidi submitted rules for amd from the am-utils package to Ubuntu
at https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/logcheck/+bug/91438
The provided rules are located at: http://launchpadlibrarian.net/6728953/amd
Please consider including them in the next release.
I've asked where to put them, but it should probably the
2009 Dec 21
2
Bug#561995: mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/lock/logcheck': Permission denied
Package: logcheck
Version: 1.3.4
Severity: normal
I am running debian/testing and just upgraded to logcheck 1.3.4 and it
started reporting the error:
mkdir: cannot create directory `/var/lock/logcheck': Permission denied
I created the directory and chown'd it to logcheck and it seems fine now.
Looking at the changelog, I see something was purposefully changed, so I
imagine I
2007 Sep 14
2
Bug#442244: logcheck-database: should include the filters from cyrus-imapd-2.2
Package: logcheck-database
Version: 1.2.54
Severity: normal
The included filters for cyrus (/etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/cyrus) are very minimal. The cyrus-imapd-2.2 has a more
extensive ruleset (there's a /etc/logcheck/ignore.d.server/cyrus2_2 file in that package).
Please copy over the filters from cyrus-imapd-2.2. I'm running logcheck on a loghost, which doesn't run cyrus
2009 Jul 03
1
Bug#535562: logcheck runs at normal I/O priority, and is hard-coded to nice -n10
Package: logcheck
Version: 1.2.69
Severity: normal
logcheck is a "batchy" job, but currently runs at normal I/O priority,
and is hard-coded to run with a niceness of 10. As a result logcheck
can degrade interactive performance on machines with a lot of log
traffic, relatively slow CPU or expensive I/O.
It'd be useful if the "ionice" and "schedtool" utilities
2005 Jun 03
2
[ttroxell@debian.org: Re: Logcheck rules from other packages]
I'm not sure if this message ever made it to you, Jamie. I had a reverse DNS
problem shortly after it was sent.
----- Forwarded message from Todd Troxell <ttroxell at debian.org> -----
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 01:22:18 -0400
From: Todd Troxell <ttroxell at debian.org>
To: "Jamie L. Penman-Smithson" <jamie at silverdream.org>
Subject: Re: Logcheck rules from other