On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Hugh Irvine wrote:
> This is what it should do, however it is posting a warning to let you know. Is
> the real question "can I suppress the warning?"? If so, the answer at the
> moment is no, until we completely re-do the logging subsystem.
The logging itself doesn't bother me. "grep -v" is my friend. :) It's just
that it really does deny the users access:
Sat Jul 1 20:36:35 2000: WARNING: Could not find a Client for NAS 204.146.166.105 to
double-check Simultaneous-Use. Perhaps you do not have a reverse DNS for that NAS?
Sat Jul 1 20:36:35 2000: INFO: Access rejected for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I think I'll take a look at the code and see about switching the default
behavior and submit the patch. A more detailed fix would be to map all the
existing clients to IPs and compare the actual addresses instead of just
trying to match via reverse DNS but I think I'll get the customers happy
first with the quick fix.
> I think you may have to do some more investigation to ascertain under what
> conditions the session database is not being correctly updated.
I will. I just need to watch it so my log doesn't overflow before I find
the piece of info I need. :)
--
Senior Systems Engineer | "Where are we going, and what am I doing in
BigNet, Inc. | this handbasket?"
Phone: 248-771-1261 | - Paraphrased from various people's .sigs
Fax: 248-771-1269 |
===
Archive at http://www.starport.net/~radiator/
Announcements on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, email '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' with
'unsubscribe radiator' in the body of the message.
