Mikael Bak put forth on 4/12/2011 7:31 AM: > Stan Hoeppner wrote: > [snip] >> >>> Received: from [190.221.28.39] (unknown [190.221.28.39]) >> >> In this example, reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname would have >> generated a 450 rejection. You should always use >> reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname at minimum, or the more >> restrictive reject_unknown_client_hostname, though this one can cause >> problems with FPs on occasion. Best to use it with warn_if_reject for a >> while and monitor what it would have rejected. >> >> http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#reject_unknown_client_hostname >> >> However, it appears that 190.221.28.39 has rDNS of >> >> Name: host39.190-221-28.telmex.net.ar >> Address: 190.221.28.39
> No. The "reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname" in the above example > would not have generated a 450 rejection, since the IP address HAS a > reverse dns hostname. Yes, it would have. Note the "unknown" in the Received line. The rDNS lookup failed during the transaction in question, thus this restriction would have generated a 450 for this transaction. Note the following that I wrote, due to the fact the host does have rDNS: >> so reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname isn't a permanent solution >> here. I think you were a bit hasty in your reply, not carefully reading the information I provided. -- Stan
