Thanks Gordon...
On 02/12/2017 03:15 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 02/12/2017 10:56 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >>> It's probably safe to specify some range of higher numbered >>>
ports: >>> >>> use-v4-udp-ports { range 10240 65535; }; use-v6-udp-ports
{ range >>> 10240 65535; }; >> >> But that is not the ports that I am
seeing in logwatch: > > > Yes, I know. The work-around in the bug
report specifies which ports > to exclude, but it doesn't include some
of the ports you saw in your > logs, so it won't solve the problem
entirely. If you instead specify > the ports that are allowed, and use
a higher range of ports, the > work-around should be more reliable.
No more port messages in logwatch.
Now to learn about GeoIP and what all those failures are that show up in
logwatch!