Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Curiosity DNSBL p.98 Postfix Book

Expand Messages
  • mouss
    ... note that rbldnsd may be a better choice should your list grow...
    Message 1 of 4 , May 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Le 28/05/2011 20:47, David Brown a écrit :
      > Hello Noel, yup, just in case someone sees this after Googling for a
      > similar issue: executing the rndc reload zone after updating the serial
      > number does wonders for your RBL (doh!).
      >

      note that rbldnsd may be a better choice should your list grow...



      >
      > 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.
      >>>
      >>> Example:
      >>> host 1.133.92.204.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld
      >>> 1.133.92.204.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld has address 127.0.0.3
      >>>
      >>> host 1.73.75.217.dnsbl.mydnsbl.tld
      >>> Host 1.73.75.217.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.
      >
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.