Return-Path: william@bourbon.usc.edu
Delivery-Date: Sat Oct 25 08:13:01 2008
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on merlot.usc.edu
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	version=3.2.3
Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (bourbon.usc.edu [128.125.9.75])
	by merlot.usc.edu (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9PFD1J5018972
	for <cs551@merlot.usc.edu>; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:13:01 -0700
Received: from bourbon.usc.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by bourbon.usc.edu (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m9PFNO2s032312
	for <cs551@merlot>; Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:23:25 -0700
Message-Id: <200810251523.m9PFNO2s032312@bourbon.usc.edu>
To: cs551@merlot.usc.edu
Subject: Re: 551- node-id
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:23:24 -0700
From: Bill Cheng <william@bourbon.usc.edu>

Someone wrote:

  > While logging the entries, the <from> and <to> are the node id's like
  > nunki.usc.edu_port#.
  > Messages like KPAV which have no body - specifically sender's hostname and
  > port - we cannot extract the details from there.
  > So we look up the table where we stored the information about our
  > connections, right?

For a KPAV message, although the <data> part of the log entry is empty,
you still need to log <from> and <to>.
--
Bill Cheng // bill.cheng@usc.edu <URL:http://merlot.usc.edu/william/usc/>