Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-log4j-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 13017 invoked by uid 500); 8 Oct 2001 15:20:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Reply-To: "LOG4J Users Mailing List" Delivered-To: mailing list log4j-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 12877 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 15:20:50 -0000 Message-ID: From: Jim Moore To: 'LOG4J Users Mailing List' Subject: RE: SMTP appender throttling? Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:18:12 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N You can get that kind of behavior by providing your own TriggerEvaluator and putting a timer/counter in it. -----Original Message----- From: Michael Mason [mailto:michael.mason@digitalrum.com] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2001 11:02 AM To: Log4j-User (E-mail) Subject: SMTP appender throttling? Hi, We've been using log4j for a while now and use it on several production systems. We've set up an SMTP appender so serious error messages are emailed to us. This means we get prodded and take action to fix the problem, and can be slightly lazier than if we had to continually check log files. We've had situations where something has gone seriously wrong (such as the DB server going away) which generate lots and lots of error messages. We've found that the email generated by the logging of these messages actually swamps our office incoming net connection, the mail gets backed up at our ISP, bandwidth is wasted at colo, and general nastiness occurs. What I'd really like is to be able to throttle the messages in some way. Something along the lines of "only send 100 mail messages per minute" or "send only 100k of mail per minute" or "batch messages and never send more than 1 email per second" or something in between would be good. Can log4j do this? Is it a useful thing to be able to do, or are we simply doing the Wrong Thing using SMTP in this way, and something else (e.g. remote syslog) would be better? If log4j can't (yet) do this and it isn't an insane idea, I guess my next stop is log4j-dev... ;-) Cheers, Mike. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: log4j-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: log4j-user-help@jakarta.apache.org