powered by Jive Software

Logging vs. auditing - what is stored?

is there any way to store the actual text messages/user names of each chat conversation that takes place on the server?

the default logging capabilities seem to save mostly system messages and errors, but don’'t store chat messages.

i noticed in the server admin console that there is a section entitled “Audit Policy”, in which it seems like you can audit message packets. what exact information is logged if you enable this (i did it), and where is it stored (i can’'t find it!).

i’'d like to be able to save all chat conversations (usernames, text of chat, and timestamp) for every chat that takes place on the server.

thanks for any help…

$JIVE_MESSENGER_DIR/logs/jive.audit-0.log (substitute the directory separator of your choice for the ‘’/’’ if needed)

Check off audit messages in the admin interface and you will get an entry that looks like this

Hello? Hello?

Maybe it would be cool to use a fifo as your log file and send the other end directly to a xml parsing script to pull out the parts you are interested in and insert them into a database of your choosing. (love that open source software)

as i remember someone was willing to create plugin to make logs more readable or something like that

I would love to see a plugin … as it stands now it takes forever for me to sort through a log file with nearly 1000 people chatting all day. Unless I know EXACTLY what I’‘m looking for (specific phrase) I don’'t even bother … its more of a headache than a feature at the moment.


Any suggestions on what you’'d like to see? A few things we have been considering (some of this may require database auditing instead of file-system):

  • Ability to search through logs using keywords. By default, only the message bodies would be indexed and searchable.

  • Ability to view logs by date range.

  • Ability to view logs by user.



can we have all?:slight_smile:


I would be pleased to see those features you mentioned! A search by keyword would be helpful, but a search by keyword alone can be done with any text editor. Something a little more powerful in which one could include/limit searches by username, participating parties, time and date, etc would be extremely helpful.

As for browsing through logs, I’'d love to be able to browse both by date (maybe even time slot … 1pm to 3pm for instance) and by user or user-to-user.

For example, if I wanted to audit a chat between Suzie and John I could select “user logs” and then either of their usernames. Once I selected their name I could choose to see ALL of Suzie’s logs or simply click on John’'s username (within Suzie’s log) to see all logs between the two of them. Or if the search mentioned above was implemented, I could select both of their usernames, set a time interval unless I wanted to see all records, and search with or without a keyword.

I know that implementing the above can be a lot of work, with or without database support. Anything helps at this point, so if a basic keyword search comes along (minus all the xml data I have to filter out in the actual log file) … I’'d be a happy camper.

Ideally I’'d like to have more than one choice when searching through the logs:

  • Ability to view/search by day or month (would be nice for people without logs as large as what we have)

  • Ability to view/search by user, user-to-user, or by chat room

  • Ability to view/search by keyword (with restrictions to username, date, time, etc.)

Just a few suggestions.

Thanks Matt

Thanks for the feature requests! We’'ll certainly take them into consideration when building out improved auditing support.



I’'m not sure if the original question was ever answered … what is the difference between auditing and logging?

I see that you can turn on logging for group chats (which is all I want it for), and that log appears to be written into the (embedded, in my case) database.

Is there any way to write this log out to a file … like a transcript exactly as presented in the chat window? If not … how do I access the (embedded) database? Thanks.