Understood. Thank you.

Am Fr., 4. Jan. 2019 um 15:11 Uhr schrieb Matus UHLAR - fantomas <
uh...@fantomas.sk>:

> On 04.01.19 14:44, Stefan Bauer wrote:
> >we have enforced TLS to all remote sites and have appropriate tls policy
> >server, that checks if TLS is avail before accepting mails. That works as
> >expected. we also only accept users with auth.
> >
> >smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks permit_sasl_authenticated
> >reject_unauth_destination
> >
> >smtpd_recipient_restrictions = check_policy_service unix:private/policy
> >
> >policy server returns dunno or defer...
> >
> >Now the problem:
> >
> >for some destinations, we are aware, that TLS fails, so we skip checking
> >and set "may" policy for specific users/destinations. However this
> settings
> >seems to have no effect anymore, when we enable check_policy_service.
> >
> >master.cf (snippet):
> >finance  unix -       -       n       -       -       smtp
> >smtp_tls_policy_maps=hash:/etc/postfix/tls/finance
> >
> >tls/finance:
> >remote-site.de may
> >
> >policy server responds with defer.... and custom smtp_tls_policy_maps are
> >ignored.
> >
> >Howto work around this?
>
> this looks to me that you search for connection between
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions
> and smtp_tls_policy_maps, and there is none.
>
> the "check_policy_service private/policy" communicates via unix socket
> private/policy (apparetly in postfix directory) to external program that
> tells smtpd what to do.
>
> if you want your policy server to return dunno for sending domain
> "remote-site.de", your policy server must look to the
> /etc/postfix/tls/finance
> table for the remote-site.de domain.
>
> the policy server doesn't look to your "smtp_tls_policy_maps" settings,
> usually it does not read postfix configuration at all.
>
> --
> Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uh...@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
> Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
> Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
> Nothing is fool-proof to a talented fool.
>

Reply via email to