Re: Curiosity DNSBL p.98 Postfix Book
- Le 28/05/2011 20:47, David Brown a écrit :
> Hello Noel, yup, just in case someone sees this after Googling for anote that rbldnsd may be a better choice should your list grow...
> similar issue: executing the rndc reload zone after updating the serial
> number does wonders for your RBL (doh!).
> On Sat, 2011-05-28 at 12:57 -0500, Noel Jones wrote:
>> On 5/28/2011 12:50 PM, David Brown wrote:
>>> Hello Postfixers, attempting to get my postfix server in good shape I
>>> read the Book of Postfix to help me resolve some key issues.
>>> Now, I implemented the use of the dnsbl per p. 98 in the Postfix book.
>>> On the postfix rbl list I included the now standard list of rbls
>>> including spamcop and spamhaus. This part of the rbl works as expected.
>>> I then included my own dnsbl defined in my BIND9 server and included in
>>> the postfix config.
>>> The curious issue about using my own dnsbl is not all reversed IPs
>>> resolve to 127.0.0.3 as expected since the target IP is definitely in
>>> the range of IPs defined in the local dnsbl.
>>> This means running the host command with the reversed ip address with
>>> the dnsbl hostname tacked onto the end may or may not resolve to
>>> 127.0.0.3. Some IPs resolve correctly and some do not but both target IP
>>> addresses have a range defined in the custom dnsbl.
>>> host 220.127.116.11.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld
>>> 18.104.22.168.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld has address 127.0.0.3
>>> host 22.214.171.124.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld
>>> Host 126.96.36.199.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
>>> Yet both IP addresses referenced above reside within the same list.
>>> Has anyone seen this before? And, howto debug this situation?
>>> Please advise.
>> This looks like a problem in your BIND9 dnsbl; nothing to do
>> with postfix.
>> If you need more help, try a BIND9 support forum.