# postconf smtpd_client_restrictions
smtpd_client_restrictions = reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname,
check_client_access hash:/etc/postfix/client_access,
permit_sasl_authenticated

On 14/05/2018 12:00, Mike Guelfi wrote:
> postmap is a lookup management tool; doing a query on an IP in a subnet
> isn't going to succeed.
> 
> You probably just forgot to enable client_access or reload postfix
> 
> What does this return?
> # postconf smtpd_client_restrictions
> 
> Default is:
> smtpd_client_restrictions =
> 
> enabled would be:
> smtpd_client_restrictions = check_client_access hash:/path/to/client_access
> 
> Quoting jack <j...@jackpot.uk.net>:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> In the online documentation for access tables
>> (http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html), it says:
>>
>>               Subnetworks  are  matched  by  repeatedly  truncating
>>               the  last ".octet" from the remote IPv4 host address
>>               string until a  match is found in the access table, or
>>               until further truncation is not possible.
>>
>> This is supposedly subject only to the restriction that the table is an
>> indexed file "such as DB or DBM".
>>
>> I have the following client_access table:
>> 5.188.9         REJECT WebShield Network trying to hack Dovecot
>> 2018-05-10 - test
>> 5.188.9.1         REJECT WebShield Network trying to hack Dovecot
>> 2018-05-10
>>
>> I compile the table to create client_access.db:
>> # postmap client_access
>>
>> I then try:
>> # postmap -q 5.188.9.2 client_access
>> [no output]
>>
>> # postmap -q 5.188.9.1 client_access
>> REJECT WebShield Network trying to hack Dovecot 2018-05-10
>>
>> The behaviour of postmap seems to be at odds with the documentation;
>> specfically, it does not seem to be possible to match an address against
>> an address-prefix in the table. Am I misunderstanding the docs, or do
>> they need fixing?
>>
>> I haven't tried any of the other indexed lookup types; is there some
>> other table type that works properly? Do I need to test them all to see
>> if they comply with the docs?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -- 
>> Jack.
> 
> 

Reply via email to