Removal of references to LiteSpeed

X

XN-Matt

Well-Known Member
#1
#1
I've asked this before, have been assured it would be implemented in a later release, it never is.

When changing "Server Signature" to hide everything, any references to LiteSpeed should be removed but they are not.

We can remove the footer on index pages by a simple page edit, fair enough. However, error pages are a different story.

A single server-wide setting should be applied but isn't. Why should we have to pay for software which then links to the software suppliers website. Why should paying customers, for paid software, advertise for free?

Asking for this before gives the standard, non-helpful response of use an error page to which I have asked how to apply one globally when using cPanel which never gets any sort of helpful response.

So, when are you actually going to make that configuration option removal all references to LiteSpeed?
 
X

XN-Matt

Well-Known Member
#3
#3
Well thanks for answering my post with something completely useless.

How about you re-read my post and actually answer the queries.

I cannot do what you have suggested as we use cPanel and we should NOT have to do stuff to remove your adverts for each individual site.

We want it gone. We pay for the software and we shouldn't have to advertise for you.
 
W

webizen

Well-Known Member
#4
#4
You can customize these error pages by modify ErrorDocument directive in /usr/local/apache/conf/include/errordocument.conf which is why the reference thread is given.

Take 403 error page, for example, you can use default 403 page as follows:

Code: 
ErrorDocument 403 /403.shtml
Alias /403.shtml /usr/local/apache/htdocs/403.shtml
Alias /cp_errordocument.shtml /usr/local/apache/htdocs/cp_errordocument.shtml
Where cp_errordocument.shtml is referenced in 403.shtml.

or

Code: 
ErrorDocument 403 "You are NOT allowed to access"
in case someone would like to use their own error page (override global error page), define ErrorDocument directive in local .htaccess with a different URL (local) such as:
Code: 
ErrorDocument 403 /local403.shtml
 
X

XN-Matt

Well-Known Member
#8
#8
So nearly three weeks for any kind of support response.

No wonder you've removed that from your helpdesk so you can ignore issues like this!
 
X

XN-Matt

Well-Known Member
#10
#10
The work arounds do not work as documented for server-wide implementations when using cPanel, so it should be higher but also to point out, this was assured years ago.

Over 2 years we were assured it would be implemented in the next version, of which there have been several since.

You're also still yet to answer why any paying customer should have to advertise your software that has been PAID for.
 
W

webizen

Well-Known Member
#11
#11
The work around also works for individual vhost as stated earlier.

webizen said:
in case someone would like to use their own error page (override global error page), define ErrorDocument directive in local .htaccess with a different URL (local) such as:
Code: 
ErrorDocument 403 /local403.shtml
Click to expand...
 
X

XN-Matt

Well-Known Member
#12
#12
And if you care to re-read, we should not have to do this for each and every site.

It should not be enabled in the first instance but as it is, there needs to be a way to disable globally. As such, there is no work around and as such, when is it going to be fixed.

Do you think 2 years is an acceptable wait?

Also, I'll ask again as it keeps getting ignored:

You're also still yet to answer why any paying customer should have to advertise your software that has been PAID for.
 
W

webizen

Well-Known Member
#13
#13
if you look for a global solution, use your default cpanel errordoc or customize the default errdoc.

that said, the work around cover all you need (global or individual). iow, the way to not advertise the software is already provided.
 
W

webizen

Well-Known Member
#15
#15
if a solution/workaround already addressed the issue and is easy to implement, why not use it or even use it right away? that's why no eta for making configuration option (your desired change) available at this point as we have other higher priority items to address which is understandable. you could wait. but that's your choice.

that said, the question "Do you think 2 years is an acceptable wait?" is really for you instead.
 
Last edited:
X

XN-Matt

Well-Known Member
#16
#16
Not really..

Lets go through this again. One of your staff 2 years ago said it would be in a next release.

We're several releases on and nothing. So the question is not for me and you're response is completely stupid.

So answer the query; do you think 2 years of waiting after one of your staff said it would be sorted is acceptable. No is the answer, if you're unsure of how to answer it.

Why not answer it and all the the questions that you've ignored!
 
W

webizen

Well-Known Member
#17
#17
thought you asked about the wait time you spent for the last 2 years. but if you meant for waiting for another 2 years, i can not tell you for sure since we have no eta.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top