Yes, the only thing the MWAgents in our local machines do is to collect the IT Security events and send them to the SETP Server. And, yes, starting/stopping the service when there is no SETP server could be an option. However, this needs to be possible to do remotely - we can not "run around" doing it manually in some 40 computers. Therefore, stopping and starting the service is not as simple to implement as one might think. I would like to avoid this.

I would much rather prefer that the MWAgent is modified to report "contact lost" the first time the server can not be reached, keep quiet on successive failing send attempts and report "contact re-established" the first time the server can be reached again after a period of send failures.
Why would you need an option controlling this behavour? Why not just replace the 1005 event by the two new events proposed above? Who needs to be informed cyclically about the same thing anyway?!!!
In fact, my collegues in our Systems Integration group tend to consider the MWAgent ILL-BEHAVED when it fills up the application log - rendering the log more or less useless. The MWAgent definitely uses a different philosophy for its error reporting than the one we impose on our own applications. (Our rules e.g. clearly state that this kind of cyclic reporting should be avoided).
In your situation I would try to include the proposed more user friendly error reporting in the rolling beta. Or at least make it possible to optionally suppress the 1005 event. Please inform me if you do so!
(Just trying to help you improve your product. Something we will both benefit from)
Yours sincerely,
Mats Hjelte
Saab Systems