From: Noel Jones (njonesmegan.vbhcs.org)
Date: Tue Feb 24 2009 - 10:21:21 CST

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

jeff donovan wrote:
>
> On Feb 20, 2009, at 12:18 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
>
>> jeff donovan wrote:
>>> On Feb 20, 2009, at 9:56 AM, J.P. Trosclair wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You should see the REJECT please... from Noel's example in the logs.
>>>>
>>>> J.P.
>>> got it working.
>>
>> You can also
>> # grep 'reject: .*backscatterer' /var/log/maillog
>> to see how your RBL is working.
>>
>>> Feb 20 11:07:51 mail2 postfix/smtpd[28710]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
>>> from mailrelay1.msp.eschelon.com[209.150.200.11]: 557 <>: Sender
>>> address rejected: please don't send notices to forged sender; from=<>
>>> to=<victimmydomain> proto=ESMTP helo=<mailrelay1.msp.eschelon.com>
>>
>> Why are you using a reject code "557"? Please don't make up your own
>> reject codes, the default is correct and sufficient.
>
> I had individual numbers so I could tell which access list was doing what.
> #unknown_local_recipient_reject_code = 550
> #unknown_address_reject_code = 554
> #unknown_hostname_reject_code = 555
> #unknown_client_reject_code = 556
> #access_map_reject_code = 557
> #maps_rbl_reject_code = 558
>
> i commented them out.
>

Good. There is no need to change the codes to to differentiate
the rejections.

The postfix "built-in" restrictions, such as
reject_unknown_client_hostname, each give a unique and clear
description of what rule rejected the client.

For access tables, use custom text like the example I provided
earlier to see what rule caused the rejection.

The *reject_code parameters mean something to remote MTAs and
generally should not be changed from their carefully selected
default values.

   -- Noel Jones

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]