Csf

NoBaloney2

NoBaloney Internet Svcs.
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
498
Location
California
If to follow recommendations of CSF, yes it would be nice to make it to look like Andrea suggested in post#4 for more compatibility with plugin and security.
Will the logs then be smaller or larger? Please someone who's currently using that setup let me know if it's easier or harder to follow logs, and they're larger.

Thanks.

Jeff
 

Duboux

Verified User
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
264
I could pm u a number of lines from my mainlog if you like.
control-panel access is fine too.
I've been running CSF for over a year, both with spamblocker 3 and 4.
Let me know.
 

NoBaloney2

NoBaloney Internet Svcs.
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
498
Location
California
I really don't have time to do my own analysis right now. If someone has a feel for it, especially for searching through for problems, please let me know.

Thanks.

Jeff
 

zEitEr

Super Moderator
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
14,159
Location
GMT +7.00
@Jeff,

According to your post here SpamBlockerTechnology* powered exim.conf, Version 4.1 has all those lines by default, including +arguments. But the earlier version installed by default with DirectAdmin comes without +arguments. And that is all difference.

As with directadmin a second version of SpamBlocker comes by default, which has no +arguments, directadmin administrators see the mentioned earlier error on CSF page.
 

NoBaloney2

NoBaloney Internet Svcs.
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
498
Location
California
Thanks, Alex. I think what you just wrote is that my most recent code is okay. If not, post what I should use.

I need to do a few updates to my latest code (will be version 4.2) before DirectAdmin is going to start using it; I'll get to it soon after the first of the year; most likely in January.

Jeff
 
Top