Re: reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname safe?
- On 2013-05-06 18:54:57 -0500, /dev/rob0 wrote:
> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 11:13:20PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:There's no mail exchanger here. The machine in question
> > On 2013-05-06 01:10:59 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > > On 5/5/2013 8:10 PM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > > > Received: from carotte.tilapin.org (unknown [188.8.131.52])
> > > > by ioooi.vinc17.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFA4959
> > > > for <vincent@...>; Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:15:23
> > > > +0200 (CEST)
> > > >
> > > > $ host 184.108.40.206
> > > > Host 220.127.116.11.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
> > >
> > > ~$ host 18.104.22.168
> > > Host 22.214.171.124.in-addr.arpa. not found: 3(NXDOMAIN)
> > >
> > > ~$ host carotte.tilapin.org
> > > carotte.tilapin.org has address 126.96.36.199
> > >
> > > Not only is rDNS non-existent but the HELO name points to an IP
> > > different than the client IP. It's difficult to FUBAR this more
> > > than it is.
> > AFAIK, there's no requirement in the RFCs that the HELO name point
> > to the client IP, and there are good reasons to allow a mismatch, e.g.
> > due to several machines sharing the same IP with NAT, or a machine
> > having several interfaces (with several IPs), or a laptop that can
> > move between various networks.
> It's not usual, and definitely not ideal, to use NAT on a mail
> exchanger, although a load balancer (which is more common and
> sensible) can have similar effects. Also, a laptop as you describe
> would usually not be in the role of mail exchanger, so its HELO
> should only matter to its MSA.
(carotte.tilapin.org) just sends the mail.
> > > > and this is from a Debian developer.Except that the machine is just the client, not a mail exchanger.
> > >
> > I just meant that
> > * his mail config is probably sane (the fact that the IP doesn't
> > have a rDNS is not his fault, but the ISP's);
> Don't try to run a mail exchanger on a dynamic IP address or one
> lacking FCrDNS. It's definitely his fault for doing so.
> > * one can lose rather important mail (e.g. related to work).I don't think this is really true. This may depend on the country
> Yes. Reread Noel's post upthread. I was the one who originally said
> reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname is safe, and Noel explained
> why: the mail you reject is also being rejected by most major
and the people one communicates with. If users still send mail from
an IP without rDNS, there may be a reason...
Moreover some major receivers may support IPv4 only for their MX,
so that if the IPv4 address of the sender has a reverse hostname
but not the IPv6 address, this user may not notice the problem.
For instance, for two majors receivers in France:
$ host -t mx free.fr
free.fr mail is handled by 20 mx2.free.fr.
free.fr mail is handled by 10 mx1.free.fr.
$ host mx1.free.fr
mx1.free.fr has address 188.8.131.52
mx1.free.fr has address 184.108.40.206
$ host mx2.free.fr
mx2.free.fr has address 220.127.116.11
mx2.free.fr has address 18.104.22.168
$ host -t mx wanadoo.fr
wanadoo.fr mail is handled by 10 smtp-in.orange.fr.
$ host smtp-in.orange.fr
smtp-in.orange.fr has address 22.214.171.124
smtp-in.orange.fr has address 126.96.36.199
$ host -t mx vinc17.net
vinc17.net mail is handled by 10 ioooi.vinc17.net.
$ host ioooi.vinc17.net
ioooi.vinc17.net has address 188.8.131.52
ioooi.vinc17.net has IPv6 address 2001:4b98:dc0:45:216:3eff:fe9b:eb2f
So, the sender mentioned above would see no problems with the majors
receivers (free.fr, wanadoo.fr), where IPv4 will be used, but if I
configure Postfix with reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname on my
domain, the sender in question will see his mail rejected because
IPv6 would be used and his IPv6 address doesn't have a reverse
> Your would-be correspondent has trouble corresponding withThis is what I can observe, but I was thinking about using
> everyone. Eventually he should figure out that he can't run a mail
> server on a dynamic IP address.
> Sure, you might choose to open your floodgates to these clients. I
> guarantee the vast majority of them are spam zombies.
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname-like filter with scoring.
> > Anyway one should be able to configure *client*-side mail softwareI could do that since I have my own server.
> > without being a specialist of SMTP RFCs and things like that...
> Absolutely. You would have your MUA submit to a MSA. Your MSA would
> not care about FCrDNS.
But I don't see this as a final solution since most users use a
shared MSA and the outgoing mail server may be blacklisted more
or less often (this is the case of my ISP, which is frequently
blacklisted by spamcop) or not reliable (e.g. at my lab, which
has also been blacklisted several times due to some users with
compromised machines). And running a local MSA would yield the
same problems as not using a MSA.
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@...> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
- On 5/14/2013 11:45 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 8:33 AM, /dev/rob0 <rob0@...> wrote:"permits" always come before "rejects". Thus whitelist type entries
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 07:49:50AM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote:
>>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>> warn_if_reject reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
>>> warn_if_reject reject_unknown_helo_hostname,
>>> check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access,
>>> check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/sender_access,
>>> reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
>>> reject_rhsbl_client dbl.spamhaus.org,
>>> reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org,
>>> reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org,
>>> permit_dnswl_client list.dnswl.org=127.0.[0..255].[1..3],
>> The last two lines are no-op. If you have anything you want to be
>> subjected to the list.dnswl.org whitelist, put it after the
>> permit_dnswl_client. If not, there is no point in querying it.
> Excellent point. If the next step is going to "permit" anyway, then no use
> in the extra query. I've moved the dnswl.org line up so that it's just
> above the three "local" check_* lines.
should always be at the top of the restrictions list. As you are using
(client|helo|sender|recipient) sections any whitelisting in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions should typically be at the very top.
This shows you are explicitly permitting anything/everything listed in
the dnswl. Are you sure that is what you want? I use...
which does not explicitly permit email marketing providers nor any IP
with trustworthiness score of 1. A score of 1 is equivalent to a
SpamAssassin score of -1, which does not merit a direct shot to the
queue. That would typically require an SA score of -5. I want these
clients to go through all of my other restrictions before allowing their
payload into my queue.
Also worth noting, there are currently only 14 categories (3rd octet of
a reply), so specifying 255 is not necessary, and possibly problematic.
Hypothetically, if dnswl decided one day to create categories 16,
political campaigns, and 17, religious newsletters, you are currently
setup to automatically permit such clients.
Remember, the sole purpose of whitelisting is to bypass all of your
other spam checks and get the mail into your queue unmolested. IMO, not
every IP listed by dnswl is deserving of this honor, not even close to
all of them.
See section "Return codes" at: http://www.dnswl.org/tech