[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-17 Thread Eugene R via Postfix-users
But it seems that all the useful information is already shown in the dovecot log line (unless we want to differentiate SASL vs IMAP auth failures for some reason). Eugene On 17.05.2023 14:06, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users: [ Charset

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-17 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users: [ Charset ISO-8859-2 converted... ] > >On 2023-05-16 at 12:19:03 UTC-0400 (Tue, 16 May 2023 18:19:03 +0200) > >V?ctor Rubiella Monfort via Postfix-users > >is rumored to have said: > >>For example for imap/pop login failures dovecot log email account >

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-17 Thread Matus UHLAR - fantomas via Postfix-users
On 2023-05-16 at 12:19:03 UTC-0400 (Tue, 16 May 2023 18:19:03 +0200) Víctor Rubiella Monfort via Postfix-users is rumored to have said: For example for imap/pop login failures dovecot log email account that produces the failure. On 16.05.23 13:57, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote: If you are

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Peter via Postfix-users
On 17/05/23 00:14, mailmary--- via Postfix-users wrote: I am talking about the authentication email, not MAIL FROM or RCPT TO. There is no "authentication email". There is a login username which can be just about anything and in your case likely just happens to match the user's email

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Bill Cole via Postfix-users
On 2023-05-16 at 12:19:03 UTC-0400 (Tue, 16 May 2023 18:19:03 +0200) Víctor Rubiella Monfort via Postfix-users is rumored to have said: For example for imap/pop login failures dovecot log email account that produces the failure. If you are using Dovecot for SASL and have auth_verbose enabled

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Bastian Blank via Postfix-users
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 07:32:55PM +0300, Eugene R via Postfix-users wrote: > Am I correct that the string in question should normally contain the SASL > response? While the "Password:" is apparently some interactive prompt, > indicating that something might be wrong with the connection or >

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Eugene R via Postfix-users
Hello, Am I correct that the string in question should normally contain the SASL response? While the "Password:" is apparently some interactive prompt, indicating that something might be wrong with the connection or configuration? Eugene On 16.05.2023 17:06, Wietse Venema via Postfix-users

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Víctor Rubiella Monfort via Postfix-users
Hi, But what about show user login? Currently we have issues when fail2ban blocks IPS for a high number or failed logins, but is a customer with several mail accounts and he don't know which bad-configured account is causing the ban. Would be so healpfull shows the sasl_username that

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
mailmary--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 14:14: so why not report the email, instead of a base64 string? how usefull is decode of base64 here ? its what happens next it more usefull to log https://github.com/PowerDNS/weakforced ___

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
Wietse Venema via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 13:52: That is not the case. i know my weakforced is not perfekt but i see all detail before reject, even if postfix dont log it https://github.com/PowerDNS/weakforced ___ Postfix-users mailing

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Benny Pedersen via Postfix-users
mailmary--- via Postfix-users skrev den 2023-05-16 11:50: Isn't the above useless? Should it say something like: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: failed@email.address PS: I know that I can add -v to the smtpd submission process to get thousands of debug lines and among them is the

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
mailmary--- via Postfix-users: > > In all honesty, the current situation of logging the base64 string > "UGFzc3dvcmQ6" does not help us. > > Maybe we could reconsider, and actually log the data (raw or base64-decoded)? Absolutely not. As a matter of security principle, one does not log the

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread mailmary--- via Postfix-users
In all honesty, the current situation of logging the base64 string "UGFzc3dvcmQ6" does not help us. Maybe we could reconsider, and actually log the data (raw or base64-decoded)? On Tue, 16 May 2023 09:30:44 -0400 (EDT) Wietse Venema via Postfix-users wrote: > mailmary--- via

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
mailmary--- via Postfix-users: > > I am talking about the authentication email, not MAIL FROM or RCPT TO. > > hmm, when using the -v parameter, just above the "SASL LOGIN > authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6" log entry, I can clearly see > the email/password > > thus postfix knows the email

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread mailmary--- via Postfix-users
I am talking about the authentication email, not MAIL FROM or RCPT TO. hmm, when using the -v parameter, just above the "SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6" log entry, I can clearly see the email/password thus postfix knows the email address being authenticated BEFORE the error

[pfx] Re: logging strangeness

2023-05-16 Thread Wietse Venema via Postfix-users
mailmary--- via Postfix-users: > > Out of curiosity, why does postfix display the base64 encoded "Password:" > string on failed authentication, instead of the user/email that actually > failed? > > eg: > warning: unknown[59.2.250.144]: SASL LOGIN authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 ... > >