OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
Re: Client host [127.0.0.1] blocked

From: Kenneth Loafman (kenlt.com)
Date: Tue Dec 02 2003 - 09:37:18 CST


Kabagambe Kenneth wrote:
> Hi,
> I am seeing this in some of the bounced emails that I have recieved.
>
>
>> The Postfix program
>>
>><test-userspice.eahd.or.ug>: host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] said: 554 5.1.0 Service
>> unavailable; Client host [127.0.0.1] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
>>Blocked
>> - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?127.0.0.1 (in reply to end of DATA
>> command)
>
>
>>Content-Description: Delivery error report
>>Reporting-MTA: dns; spice.eahd.or.ug
>>Arrival-Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2003 12:54:36 +0300 (EAT)
>>
>>Final-Recipient: rfc822; test-userspice.eahd.or.ug
>>Action: failed
>>Status: 5.0.0
>>Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host 127.0.0.1[127.0.0.1] said: 554 5.1.0 Service
>> unavailable; Client host [127.0.0.1] blocked using bl.spamcop.net;
>>Blocked
>> - see http://www.spamcop.net/bl.shtml?127.0.0.1 (in reply to end of DATA
>> command)
>>
>
>
>
> I have these in my main.cf
>
> mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8, 192.168.1.0/24, 62.128.174.0/24, 64.152.195.0/24, 193.219.212.0/24
>
> smtpd_client_restrictions =
>
> smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
> permit_mx_backup,
> regexp:/etc/postfix/regexp.cf,
> reject_unauth_destination,
> reject_invalid_hostname,
> reject_unauth_pipelining,
> reject_non_fqdn_sender,
> reject_unknown_sender_domain,
> reject_multi_recipient_bounce,
> reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> reject_multi_recipient_bounce,
> reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
> reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
> reject_rhsbl_client blackhole.securitysage.com,
> reject_rbl_client relays.ordb.org,
> reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org,
> reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
> reject_rbl_client blackholes.wirehub.net
>
> Is there someone who manages the spamcop.net here? Other rbls are working fine.

Not me, but I do follow the SC newsgroups. There's been a bit of
discussion about that and it has been fixed as of about 9am CST.

It looks to me like Postfix should not have been checking it anyway, so
I'm interested in that answer more than SC's.

...Ken