Terry Carmen wrote:
/dev/rob0 wrote:
which are properly rejected, however I also get:
NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from unknown[202.70.195.135]:
554 5.7.1 Service unavailable; Client host [202.70.195.135] blocked
using zen.spamhaus.org. To resolve this issue, please call CNY
Support and ask that your IP address be whitelisted.;
from=<fatiguelc...@sina.com.tw> to=<oneofmyus...@example.com>
proto=ESMTP helo=<abc> lost connection after DATA (0 bytes) from
unknown[202.70.195.135]
Shouldn't this be rejected by reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
No.
$ dig -x 202.70.195.135
[snip]
135.195.70.202.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN PTR
219-83-128-135.static.iolnetcom.com.
$ dig 219-83-128-135.static.iolnetcom.com.
[snip]
The postifx log says:
"RCPT from unknown[202.70.195.135]"
Regardless of the results from dig, doesn't the above log entry mean
that postfix is unable to find an rdns entry for this IP and that
reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname should be rejecting the connection?
Terry
No. Compare the description of
"reject_unknown_client_hostname" vs.
"reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname"
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unknown_client_hostname
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname
The behavior you see is correct and consistent with the
documentation.
--
Noel Jones
