update version with exim_conf

Hi,

i got a question about custombuild and exim_conf option...

first.. does this option is the way to install SpamBlocker.. if yes

why custombuild, from a fresh server install, install / update the version 2.1.1 of spamblocker.

even after a ./build clean then update then exim_conf

second.. does custombuild also install / update the file system_filter.exim
because it actually install the version 0.17e by default

and... in the spamblocker version 4.1 readme... we can clearly read this...

EDIT#5:
The location of the system_filter.exim file supplied by DirectAdmin.
This should work with the default entry. The file located on the
DirectAdmin website:
http://files.directadmin.com/services/system_filter.exim
is dated 03-Dec-2005 but yours may include customizations.

Click to expand...

but the http://files.directadmin.com/services/system_filter.exim point to the old version of system_filter 0.17e

is this normal or ?

thanks

DirectAdmin and so the custombuild system does not use as default SpamBlocker 4.1 so is normal.

Same for system_filter, you say you got the v0.17e and both link you provided are the same version, so, where is your doubt?

Regards

SeLLeRoNe said:

DirectAdmin and so the custombuild system does not use as default SpamBlocker 4.1 so is normal.

Same for system_filter, you say you got the v0.17e and both link you provided are the same version, so, where is your doubt?

Regards

Click to expand...

look at the quote i posted

is dated 03-Dec-2005 but yours may include customizations.

Click to expand...

the date mention in the exim.conf is 2005... the date of the version install is 2001... or even older

ok if custombuild do not install 4.1 yet but the actual default version is the the 2.1.1 which is 5 years old...

And so?

The SB 2.1.1 work nice and is your decision to use 4.1 or not.

Regards

SeLLeRoNe said:

And so?

The SB 2.1.1 work nice and is your decision to use 4.1 or not.

Regards

Click to expand...

well and so... custombuild install a version of exim.conf outdated from 5 years old

DirectAdmin doesn't use SpamBlocker 4.x because there's no such thing as a default every install requires customization (at least some) to run on your server. I'm going to build a version soon which will work by default without changes, and DirectAdmin will probably decide to use that. In the meantime, the older version, supplied by DirectAdmin, while without all the features of 4.x, works well for many tens of thousands of mailboxes.

Jeff

By the way why DirectAdminSpamBlocker4.1 would not work by default? I went through this version http://www.nobaloney.net/downloads/...r4.1/exim.conf-SpamBlockerTechnology-v4.1.txt and did not see anything why it would not work as is. More to say, I put it on my server, and everything seem to work fine, except a need to create some more additional files in /etc/virtual/ directory.

Thanks Jeff for reply.

Till now, i did once the customization (and not so many) on SB4.1 and use that as default on all server, i presume that a little standardization of SB4.1 is possible and can be used as default, than, if someone wanna customize any part would be always possible.

Regards

and Jeff

in your exim documentation you'r talking about a system_filter.exim dated on 03-Dec-2005
do you have a valid link to provide it cos the link from http://files.directadmin.com/services/system_filter.exim
is a 2001 file...

i guess there is some secure update in the newest file or what ever adjustment regarding new RFC's

Thanks

Replying to the last few posts:

I haven't checked the customization points in SpamBlocker 4.x in quite some time so I'm not sure of all the custopmization points, but the most important ones I remember are (1) to create a page where people can visit to whitelist false positive son the blocklists, and to change the error messages to point to them (at least they don't point to example.com as the older ones did, or even to my own page, as some of the oldest ones did). And (2) to choose your blocklists, especially taking into consideration the terms on the last three blocklists.

I will soon do some additional updates to my current test system, and then offer it to DirectAdmin staff before working on my next version. Surely you understand I'd like to always have some income from doing installs on my latest version; otherwise, with no income from it, I have no impetus to create the next version. But once I've published a version it's open source; there's nothing to stop DirectAdmin from taking it and distributing it with my blessings. Including the 4.x that's out there now.

And I suppose I should change my page to simply tell visitors to use the latest copy of exim.pl, though the copy on my download page should always work (but perhaps without the latest/greatest features).

Jeff

nobaloney said:

(1) to create a page where people can visit to whitelist false positive son the blocklists, and to change the error messages to point to them (at least they don't point to example.com as the older ones did, or even to my own page, as some of the oldest ones did). And (2) to choose your blocklists, especially taking into consideration the terms on the last three blocklists.

Click to expand...

That's the same with SpamBlocker 2, so there is nothing special or unusual.

Of course, but I no longer maintain SpamBlocker2, so I don't control whether or not it's fixed there. I still believe it an important fix for SpamBlocker2 before installation. For SpamBlocker Version 4 it's less important, since I've included a more generic error message by default, but I still think it important to let people know how to be unblocked.

And my concern over the blocklists is very real; I find the optional ones a very important of the blocking strategy for those of us with permission to use them.

But as I wrote previously, Certainly DirectAdmin staff can use it the way it is, or with any changes they wish to make to it, and I've brought that to their attention.

Jeff