check_second_connection stopping my recovery?

[LC Bruzenak]

On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 13:10 -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 November 2009 06:01:10 pm LC Bruzenak wrote:
> 
> Yes, it was. With the reconnect code its possible to DoS a server, so the 
> connections need to be limited. I think the best solution is to make an admin 
> tweakable setting that defaults to 1 and you can set it to 2. Your recovery 
> technique won't be needed in the long term since its planned to have a store-
> and-forward model so nothing is lost and its automatically recovered on start 
> up.
> 
> -Steve

Steve,

Your call but it may not be worth adding a new setting.
I've already patched it out of my system, and if I'm the only one who
cares then I'd say don't worry about it.  I am aware of a DoS attack but
all senders are locked tight so I feel mitigation is sufficient. In fact
I nearly DoS-attacked myself before restricting the recovery to at most
1 process. :)

The store-and-forward piece will be excellent. It will solve at least a
couple of issues for me: recovery and also forwarding from a DMZ machine
to an internal server which will then forward to an independent
collector.

Thx,
LCB.

-- 
LC (Lenny) Bruzenak
lenny at magitekltd.com