> > I suggest to add an attributes  like  OS
> > 
> > MOptions OS = linux, windows2000, windowsXP¨, windows2003
> > 
> > to indicate on which version we are speaking
> 
> Good idea, I added a "ELOG Version" as well.

I suggest MOptions - people are lazy .... :)
by the way any possibilities to have 'multiple icons' ?

> I suggest MOptions - people are lazy .... :)

Not for the Version! I don't want to update this list on every release (:-(
Plus the list would get too long over time!

> by the way any possibilities to have 'multiple icons' ?

No, you have to use MOptions instead.

> I got elog 2.3.9 running on FreeBSD 5.1 successfully,
> I compiled elog on a redhat box and then just copied over all the files to 
> the FreeBSD box and ELOG just ran with no issues.
> It's been running under heavy use for at least a month now.

FYI- the default "make" on FreeBSD is BSD, not GNU.

The easiest way to build elog on FreeBSD is to install "gmake" (via the port or
package) and type "gmake".  That's all it took for me to build a freshly
downloaded copy on 5.1 not 5 minutes ago.

Thanks for that mate, compiled elog on FreeBSD 5.1 myself no problems just like 
you said, great!

> 
> FYI- the default "make" on FreeBSD is BSD, not GNU.
> 
> The easiest way to build elog on FreeBSD is to install "gmake" (via the port or
> package) and type "gmake".  That's all it took for me to build a freshly
> downloaded copy on 5.1 not 5 minutes ago.

Heya, I've been using elog for a year or so, with a proxy through Apache,
but recently I've ran into some trouble with my Apache config, where
spammers were using my incorrectly configured proxy to send spam.

I have
some requests for the Administrator's Guide: "Running elogd under Apache". 
I'm hoping a few little notes will save others the trouble I've gone
through. Neither of these are any fault of elog's or Apache's, but of my own
ignorance. (I am using elog 2.3.9, and Apache 2.something, if that matters)

1) When doing "ProxyPass ..." when setting up elog under Apache, do NOT put
"ProxyRequests On".  This is not needed, if it is enabled and not set up
correctly, it allows spammers to send spam via Apache's proxy.  More
information on this is here: http://www.apacheweek.com/issues/03-07-25,
about halfway down the page, under "Spammers use open Apache proxies"

Even though it doesn't mention ProxyRequests in the guide, I think there
should be a little side note mentioning that "ProxyRequests On" is NOT
needed, because I put it in, thinking it was - I am probably not the only one.

2) I have found that mod_proxy_http.c must be loaded in addition to
mod_proxy.c and mod_alias.c for the proxy to work, otherwise I get a 403
error.  I think this should be mentioned as well.

Thanks, I added a note into the admin guide.

No big deal - I looked at the code and you did a much more thorough job than I
would have done. Appreciate all of the hard work -- this product is masterful!

> Sorry for that. The idea is that the -4 is the minor number between releases
> (mainly for bug fixes and impatient users (;-) ). I accidently overwrote the
> -4 version several times when testing a new RPM building scheme, but I promise
> to take more care in the future (:-)))
> 
> Having the CVS revision in the executable is however a good idea and I will
> put it in.
> 
> > Stefan, would it be ok to add the "minor" revision level to the VERSION
> > constant?  I've been doing this after I download source just so I can keep
> > things straight, you keep cranking out versions ;->
> > 
> > EX: 
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4"
> > BECOMES
> > #define VERSION "2.5.4-4-1.483" or something like that?
> > 
> > Just a thought.
> > 
> > Thanks

> > The only common denominator that could possibly cover all contingencies would
> > be LDAP authentication.  One way of doing this in a more-or-less universal
> > fashion is to offload the auth task from eLog itself and place the burden on
> > Apache.  This means figuring out how to get Apache to pass auth info to eLog
> > when eLog operates behind Apache.  In the end, anything that can use LDAP as an
> > authentication mechanism (like AD) can host eLog - as long as eLog can glom off
> > of Apache's ability to do the actual authenticating.  
> 
> That sounds to me like a great idea. If anybody gets this working, people would be
> grateful if this could be submitted to the "Contributions" section of this forum.

Ah, you test me!  Perhaps I will attempt to dig into this but I may have to leave the
integration up to you, Stefan.  Seems that there would be two roads to go:
1> Move away from standalone and start to rely on Apache
2> Continue with the standalone theme and build in LDAP authentication (which could
also give you groups functions as well). 

I think I would opt for <2>