Re: Toss load-balancer health checks, but BCC everything else (always_bcc, check_sender_access and 'smtpd_delay_reject = yes')

2018-05-12 Thread @lbutlr
On 11 May 2018, at 09:55, deoren wrote: > BCC everything EXCEPT for health check emails generated by our HAProxy > load-balancer Seems it would be much simpler to BCC everything and then discard the few messages you don’t want. -- I WILL NOT INSTIGATE REVOLUTION

Re: real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread @lbutlr
On 2018-05-12 (15:55 MDT), Thomas Smith wrote: > > The documentation[1] and several e-mails here mention that > reject_unknown_client_hostname can reject legitimate e-mails. > > What exactly are these scenarios? A mail sender doesn't have an A record. >

real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread Thomas Smith
The documentation[1] and several e-mails here mention that reject_unknown_client_hostname can reject legitimate e-mails. What exactly are these scenarios? When do they occur in real life? Are there really legitimate mail servers that don't have a reverse DNS record that resolves to their IP?

Re: real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread James
The documentation[1] and several e-mails here mention that reject_unknown_client_hostname can reject legitimate e-mails. What exactly are these scenarios? When do they occur in real life? Are there really legitimate mail servers that don't have a reverse DNS record that resolves to their IP?

Re: real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On May 12, 2018, at 6:45 PM, James wrote: > > 1) DNS lookup failures: stuff *does* break occasionally and there *will* be > minutes/hours when you reject stuff unintentionally, For the record, when the problem is lost packets, lame delegations, expired

Re: SASL LOGIN authentication failed

2018-05-12 Thread Viktor Dukhovni
> On May 13, 2018, at 12:42 AM, @lbutlr wrote: > > In these log lines, what is "UGFzc3dvcmQ6"? > > May 12 07:52:07 mail submit-tls/smtpd[32670]: warning: > vps1590651.vs.webtropia-customer.com[62.141.41.104]: SASL LOGIN > authentication failed: UGFzc3dvcmQ6 $ printf

Re: real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread Bill Cole
On 12 May 2018, at 18:45 (-0400), James wrote: The documentation[1] and several e-mails here mention that reject_unknown_client_hostname can reject legitimate e-mails. What exactly are these scenarios? When do they occur in real life? Are there really legitimate mail servers that don't have

Re: SASL LOGIN authentication failed

2018-05-12 Thread @lbutlr
On 2018-05-12 (23:01 MDT), Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > >> On May 13, 2018, at 12:42 AM, @lbutlr wrote: >> >> In these log lines, what is "UGFzc3dvcmQ6"? >> >> May 12 07:52:07 mail submit-tls/smtpd[32670]: warning: >>

Re: real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread Bill Cole
On 12 May 2018, at 17:55 (-0400), Thomas Smith wrote: The documentation[1] and several e-mails here mention that reject_unknown_client_hostname can reject legitimate e-mails. What exactly are these scenarios? When do they occur in real life? Are there really legitimate mail servers that

Re: SASL LOGIN authentication failed

2018-05-12 Thread Durga Prasad Malyala
Wonderful words to reflect on.. on a Sunday. You too will get old. And when you do you'll fantasize that when you were young prices where reasonable, politicians were noble, and children respected their elders. Respect your elders. Rgds/DP 9849111010 Sent from my iPhone. Pls excuse brevity and

Re: real life reasons not to use reject_unknown_client_hostname

2018-05-12 Thread James
I use it.  I like it.  But... real world can/will bite you in the ass: Yes, it can. Note this Received header from *your* message: Received: from trackivity.com (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:0:205::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate