William Yodlowsky wyodlows@andromeda.rutgers.edu
Wed, 13 Dec 2000 13:40:16 -0500

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 11:31:43AM -0500, jon@dumbo.pobox.com wrote:
> i think it might be a better idea to do it one of these ways: 


Interesting... My personal bent (based on my personal need, of course
;) is to have filter(DEFAULT) work with any other filter.  So something

log { source(src); filter(host1); filter(kern); filter(DEFAULT); \
	destination(host1-kern); };

...would capture any kernel messages from host1 that haven't been
captured by any other rule.

That would really make my week  :-)

Interestingly enough, if you move filter(DEFAULT) to be the FIRST filter
in a log rule, you get an error if there are any other filter()'s
there.  There is no error if it's anywhere else though...

> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 03:30:26PM +1000, Andrew Fort wrote:
> | > So it will have the opposite affect of what I wanted then... anything
> | > that matches host1 will set match=1 and DEFAULT won't match.  Heh,
> | > somehow I find it amusing that my logic was completely backwards.  Or
> | > maybe I'm up too late.  :-)
> | 
> | Correct :) Your rules have two filter statements, it's only the 
> | 
> | filter(host1);
> | 
> | and not the filter(DEFAULT); which is causing any action.