[FR] Variable to change www.example.com to something real in exim.conf

[zEitEr]

Hello,

Please add a variable in directadmin.conf or in custombuild/options.conf so to have ability to change www.example.com to something real. I mean lines in /etc/exim.conf (both 2.x and 4.x):

  deny message = Email blocked by LBL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/
  deny message = Email blocked by BSHL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/
  deny message = Email blocked by BSHL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/
  deny message = Email blocked by BSAL - to unblock see http://www.example.com/
  deny message = Email blocked by SPAMHAUS - to unblock see http://www.example.com/

That's not handt to modify them every time after exim.conf update/upgrade.

 

[smtalk]

Are you talking about original (DA version) of exim.conf 4.3? (http://files.directadmin.com/services/SpamBlocker/4.3.0/exim.conf-SpamBlockerTechnology-v4.3.0.txt)

 

[zEitEr]

No, actually 2.1. Hmm, I was not aware about 4.3 . I don't see any of those lines in 4.3 (http://files.directadmin.com/services/SpamBlocker/4.3.0/exim.strings.conf) So I'm not even sure whether or not should we stick to 2.1, if 4.3 is stable.

But if you plan to support 2.1 will it be a good idea to remove "to unblock see http://www.example.com/" or change as requested above?

 

[smtalk]

I was not able to find them in stable 4.2.2 too: http://files.directadmin.com/services/SpamBlocker/4.2.2/exim.conf-SpamBlockerTechnology-v4.2.2.txt But yes, they're in 2.1: http://files.directadmin.com/services/SpamBlocker/2.1.2/exim.conf-SpamBlockerTechnology-v2.1.2.txt. However, I'm not sure if John is going to change 2.1, because it's old-stable. I think we should wait for his reply

 

[zEitEr]

I'm sorry for confusion, that's not 4.x but 3.6:

# DirectAdmin SpamBlocker Version 3.2.6 RC exim.conf# 19-May-2010  11:26 (-0700)

Thus, only for 2.1

 

[nobaloney]

When I originally wrote SpamBlocker it had my domain name in it and nobody ever bothered to change it, so people would go to my unblocking site (spamblocked.net) and of course I couldn't unblock them. So I put example.com in future versions and when DirectAdmin staff started using my later version they copied that.

In my 4.x versions I rewrote the error message to not show any link at all unless one was added, since most users never bother to set up a link.

My recommendation would be to rewrite all versions of SpamBlocker (I don't see any verison to not switch to SpamBlocker 4.x for all future Installs; do you?) to the way I've done it in 4.x.

No use in automatically putting in a link to a non-existent page.

Jeff

 

[zEitEr]

I don't mind if to completely remove the link.