Additional masking functions to be applied to log fields

[detro]

Closes #86

[bflad]

My main concern with updating the existing functions in-place here is that the "Message" part of the function names is now not accurate -- we had gotten explicit in the naming so it was very clear what was going to be masked or omitted. I see a few options here:

• Leave/Deprecate *MaskMessage* functions with their existing functionality and introduce *MaskLog* functions that do what is now implemented here.
• Introduce new logging options and functions separately, e.g. make new LoggingOptions.MaskAllFieldValueRegexes etc. fields, then create mask functions which set only those new fields (which ApplyMask would separately check for), then potentially also create *MaskLog* functions which set both the old and new fields (thereby implementing both masking concepts)

I personally think the latter of offering provider developers the differing options is better, since sensitive data locations may either be very known but generically filtered (e.g. I always want to filter messages containing an email, but not my special email field) or very unknown (e.g. just never show this type of data ever).

[detro]

I like the second. Will change the PR tomorrow.

[bflad]

This looks awesome to me 🚀 Nice!

[github-actions]

I'm going to lock this pull request because it has been closed for 30 days ⏳. This helps our maintainers find and focus on the active contributions.
If you have found a problem that seems related to this change, please open a new issue and complete the issue template so we can capture all the details necessary to investigate further.