"P.T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:ajnrsb.88a.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
> stewart menday <stewart at webstorm.net.au> wrote:
>
> > "P.T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> > news:5omqsb.opj.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
> > > stewart menday <stewart at webstorm.net.au> wrote:
> > > > "P.T. Breuer" <ptb@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:5aunsb.6qd.ln@news.it.uc3m.es...
> > > > > Please do not top post! I'll fix this one ...
> > > > As the question was so short I didn't think it mattered if I "Top
Posted"
> > > Then why do it?
>
> > You do it because it is quicker, simple start typing.
>
>
> But you are typing a soliloquy. You alone know what the question you
> are answering is! Nobody else can tell. It's an image in yoru own head,
> not on the screen, that you are responding to!

The message before this one, or the small amount of text below, not hard
really for a SMALL message.

>
> > > It takes effort to write over the top of something,
> > > constantly glancing down at the post to see what you are replying to,
> > > and writing the answer to the question in a different place
altogether.
>
> > Not if you know what the question was.
>
> But you don't know what the question was. You THINK you do, but without
> looking at it you cannot be sure. And you also don't know what the
> other questions are, and how your answer will be perceived in relaton
> to them!
>
Like I said for a small message it is easier and quicker, I agree if the
message is long or the list or replies is long that it is easier to read and
respond by writing your answer below each question.

> So it fails as a communication method.
>

It doesn't fail as a communication method, we have communicated. Before the
days of e-mail when people sent correspondence they did so simply sending
another letter, the didn't even send a copy of the original and the person
at the other end was able to understand.

> > I think it takes longer to write
> > your answer in multiple places.
>
> Why? How can it? You don't do any work to move the cursor!
>

Yes you do.

> > I agree that if the message/question is
> > long that it is easier to understand.
>
> No comment.
>
> > > In fact I don't know how you do it! How do people answer a post more
> > > than 22 lines long by top posting? They can't see what they are
talking
> > > about when talking about it!
>
> > 22 lines maybe but you only made 2 points, the first was to say that my
> > question was wrong. How can a question be wrong?
>
> Easily! When did you stop beating your wife? Why didn't the CIA tell
> us they were making up this stuff about WMD? Which planet is Elvis on
> nowadays? Who is the guy who is fixing the football match results paid
> by?
>
> Etc.
>
> Get it?
>

Just because it is a stupid question doesn't make it wrong. The answers
are, I don't, they didn't, earth, I don't know.

> > Only the answer can be
> > wrong.
>
> Nonsense. The question can be wrong. When you are told that it is
> wrong, reexamine it, and SEE what is wrong with it.
>
>
> > And the second was to look at the man file. You don't need much of
> > a memory to remember that.
>
>
> What was "that"? I wrote the answer three times, and you repeated
> yourself three times in taking no notice.
>
>
> > > It isn't at all obvious what your problem is, since you say that you
> > > are aware of the situation. Being aware of it, what can your problem
> > > possibly be?
> > >
> > Problem, I have a broken leg, being aware of it doesn't fix it.
>
>
> Yes it does. You know it is broken, so take it to the hospital.
>
>
> > > It's like saying "I want a can of peas", and "I am aware the can of
> > > peas is in the cupboard". Great! Fantastic! So what's your problem?
> > > Go get 'em!
> > >
> > I don't know where the cupboard is.
>
>
> Then ASK!
>
Don't know exactly how to do it, ask a news group.
>
> Ask the question you mean to ask, not a non-question that you didn't
> mean to ask.
>
I and unable to determine in advance how someone else will interpret my
questions. There are a number of layers of interpretation in the written
language.
>
> > > > > Are you struggling manfully to ask if the log facility with which
pppd
> > > > > is normally logged coincides with that of some other daemon, so
that
> > > > > syslogd cannot separate them? Or if pppd can be configured to
send
> > > > > directly to a file instead of to syslog?
> > > > >
> > > > It doesn't really matter, either will do, as long as the messages
end up in
> > > > their own file
> > >
> > >
> > > No, either will not do. The answer can be negative to both or either.
>
> > If you had told be how to do either of these I would of been happy.
>
>
> I did tell you how to both. Change syslogd conf to do what you want. or
> change pppd's conf to do what you want! I even told you were and how to
> look it up! As though it were not obvious.
>
In your original reply you only mentioned syslog.conf and I still cannot see
how to separate the pppd messages from all the other daemon messages, do
you? I stoped reading the pppd help once I cam across the stuff about
syslog, a bit lazy I guess but the stuff that followed had nothing to do
with logging.
>
> > I don't
> > think you can separate the daemon facility messages (maybe you can) so
the
>
>
> Why don't you think so? What else does syslog do except precisely that?
>
As far as I can tell it will not separate anything other then the specified
facilities, auth, authpriv, cron, daemon, kern, lpr, mail, mark, and news.
If you know of a way to further separate the daemon facility then please let
me know.
>
> > only way that I know of (now) is to use the logfile option.
>
> Which you found about how? Perhaps by finally follwing the advice to
> man pppd /log ?
>
Answered above.
>
> > > Anyway, why didn't you ask that? You said that you knew syslog does
the
> > > logging, so you have to configure syslogd. What was your problem?
> > >
> > I don't know how to separate the daemon messages. Do you?
>
>
> Of course! I can read the manpage for syslogd, where it directs me to
> syslog.conf, and I can read the manpage for syslog.conf where it tells
> me how, and I can read syslog.conf, where there are plenty of
> examples.
>
> So yes, I know.
>
Then please tell me. The man file on RH9 doesn't seem to.
>
> The main configuration file /etc/syslog.conf or an alter
> native file, given with the -f option, is read at startup.
>
> ...
>
>
> DESCRIPTION
> The syslog.conf file is the main configuration file for
> the syslogd(8) which logs system messages on *nix systems.
> This file specifies rules for logging. For special fea
> tures see the sysklogd(8) manpage.
>
> Every rule consists of two fields, a selector field and an
> action field. These two fields are separated by one or
> more spaces or tabs. The selector field specifies a pat
> tern of facilities and priorities belonging to the speci
> fied action.
>
> ...
>
> The selector field itself again consists of two parts, a
> facility and a priority, separated by a period (``.'').
>
> ...
>
> The facility is one of the following keywords: auth, auth
> priv, cron, daemon, kern, lpr, mail, mark, news, security
> (same as auth), syslog, user, uucp and local0 through
> local7.
>
> ...
>
> The priority is one of the following keywords, in ascend
> ing order: debug, info, notice, warning, warn (same as
> warning), err, error (same as err), crit, alert, emerg,
> panic (same as emerg).
>
> ...
>
> Etc.
>
>
>
>
> > > > > Well, if that is the case, I suggest you take lessons in
expressing
> > > > > yourself. And then read the man page for pppd to discover the
answer to
> > > > > the question you should have put to yourself. I already told you
how:
> > > > >
> > > > > man pppd /log
> > > > >
> > > > > It really isn't hard, you know!
> > > > >
> > > > > But then you're slow? Here's a whopping clue, just for you:
> > > > >
> > > > > nolog Do not send log messages to a file or file descrip
> > > > > tor. This option cancels the logfd and logfile options.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Your time would have been better spent answering my question then in
trying
> > > > to insult me. You must be very insecure if you need to insult
people in
> > > > order to feel good.
> > >
> > > I don't need to insult you (in order to feel good or not!). You insult
> > > yourself! Did you have some problem doing the man pppd /log thang? For
> > > the third time of asking ...
> > >
> > > This is like talking to a tortoise.
> > >
> > I have to admit that I find your responses very amusing!
>
> Just for you, I've quoted the amusing parts.
>
> Peter

I should quote the who thing.

Stew