Re: alternatives to logcheck

2006-10-07 Thread Todd Troxell
Ian D. Leroux MIT.EDU> writes: > As I understand it, that's a mechanism to ignore *more* than the > default. Does it give me a way to ignore *less*, short of manually > deleting the existing rule files? You can change the default rule location to somewhere else if you don't want to use debian's

Re: alternatives to logcheck

2006-10-07 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 10:53:18AM -0400, Ian D. Leroux wrote: > > As I understand it, that's a mechanism to ignore *more* than the > default. Does it give me a way to ignore *less*, short of manually > deleting the existing rule files? > I'm not sure why you want to ignore *less* than what is i

Re: alternatives to logcheck

2006-10-07 Thread Ian D. Leroux
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 10:07:29 -0400, Robert C. Sanchez wrote: > On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:23:03AM -0400, Ian D. Leroux wrote: > > I'm looking for a way to monitor my logfiles while selectively > > ignoring > > noise, i.e. entries that *I* understand and am not worried about. > > > > This sound

Re: alternatives to logcheck

2006-10-07 Thread Miles Fidelman
Logwatch might be an alternative. Ian D. Leroux wrote: I'm looking for a way to monitor my logfiles while selectively ignoring noise, i.e. entries that *I* understand and am not worried about. This sounds like logcheck's mandate, except that logcheck seems to be more geared towards letting pack

Re: alternatives to logcheck

2006-10-07 Thread Roberto C. Sanchez
On Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 09:23:03AM -0400, Ian D. Leroux wrote: > I'm looking for a way to monitor my logfiles while selectively ignoring > noise, i.e. entries that *I* understand and am not worried about. > > This sounds like logcheck's mandate, except that logcheck seems to be > more geared towar