extended POSTFIX_TLSCONN for a higher smtpd_tls_loglevel #187
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hi @ulab , I never noticed this difference, because I don't use the increased TLS loglevel. Nice catch! |
|
I had used the dashes because the log message used it and fields like It's not like a divider between subfields in that case. [which should be changed to |
|
Ah yes, those fields come from the automatically parsed key-value-data indeed. I created issue #191 about ECS-style field naming. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Postfix 3.5.23 on a Debian 11.8 with
smtpd_tls_loglevelset to1.Of course I noticed that the reason for the failed pattern was because I increased the default loglevel after I had extended the pattern and added a test file. But maybe the extra data will help someone else too.
If not it might be an idea to have some
%{GREEDYDATA}at the end ofPOSTFIX_TLSCONNso at least extended lines do not fail the basic pattern?