I don't know what you wanted to say, but I DO know what you said...

I don't know what you wanted to say, but I DO know what you said...

Posted Nov 20, 2011 22:14 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: Yet again: there are no difference... by dlang
Parent article: That newfangled Journal thing

I am not saying that you can trust it locally,

Rilly? Perhaps my English is failing me, but I thought and that only works on a local machine was quite unambigous...

I am just pointing out that the remote machine has no way of knowing if what is sent to it is valid or not.

That's fair. But as I've noted there a little difference between local and remote case: if you know daemon and kernel are Ok you can trust the logs, if you don't know if they are Ok then you don't. Since the usual way to see if something is broken is to analyze logs, again, and they are available on both local and remote system... no, I don't get your point.

What makes logging over network so special and why can you trust info about pid in local case but not in remote case?

---

to post comments

I don't know what you wanted to say, but I DO know what you said...

Posted Nov 20, 2011 22:47 UTC (Sun) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

Ok, I should have worded it as "and that only has a chance of working on a local machine"

once you go to another machine, you no longer 'know' anything about what is really generating the message (unless you have crytographic authentication to the sending program, and event that only proves that the sender has access to the key)