The default setting of unknown_address_reject_code is 450
(http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#unknown_address_reject_code).

If the sender domain or recipient domain are not found (subject to the
caveat that this is NOT a temporary DNS error when postfix does the
lookup) isn't it reasonable to reject with a 5xx code, assuming no
temporary DNS error?

I have a particular situation in which this has come up: I am
receiving thousands and thousands of attempts by valid cox.net mail
servers to send to [email protected] (where elided.com is my domain)
from [email protected], and they look like this in my mail logs:

Nov 27 17:59:58 mailhost postfix/smtpd[20612]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT
from fed1rmfepi108.cox.net[68.230.241.139]: 450 4.1.8
<[email protected]>: Sender address rejected: Domain not
found; from=<[email protected]> to=<[email protected]>
proto=ESMTP helo=<fed1rmfepi108.cox.net>

Now, this is an obvious phishing attempt, and cibconline.cibc.com is a
valid domain (DNS query returns status: NOERROR) BUT it does not have
any A or MX records associated with it. That is presumably the reason
Postfix is rejecting the sender address because of my
reject_unknown_sender_domain setting in smtpd_sender_restrictions.

But the mail comes from a valid cox.net mail server
(http://postmaster.cox.net/confluence/display/postmaster/Outbound+MTA), and
so when Postfix returns a 4xx, the Cox mailserver queues the mail and
continues to retry it. So a few hundred phishing attempts turn into
thousands as they are retried over and over.

Can anyone provide advice? Is it reasonable to change
unknown_address_reject_code to 550 despite the admonition in the
manual: "do not change this unless you have a complete understanding
of RFC 5321". Pointers to the relevant section within that RFC are
welcome -- I've looked and didn't find anything that would imply 5xx
should not be used in this case.

As an aside: I think the new NullMX support added within the last few
days is relevant for this case also, but what is the best work-around
until that feature is widely available?

Regards,
Raman Gupta

Reply via email to