On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 09:12:54PM +1300, martin f krafft wrote:
> I am doing greylisting in smtpd_client_restrictions and later
> a policy server check in smtpd_recipient_restrictions (postconf
> included below). smtpd_delay_reject is on (the default).
Greylisting typically generates a "defer_if_permit" verdict.
http://www.postfix.org/access.5.html
DEFER_IF_PERMIT optional text...
Defer the request if some later restriction would result in a an
explicit or implicit PERMIT action. Reply with
"$access_map_defer_code 4.7.1 optional text..." when the
optional text is specified, otherwise reply with a generic error
response message.
This is good, because it is silly to defer mail that will ultimately
be rejected. With "defer_if_permit", processing goes on in the
"hope" that the mail may yet still be rejected by later restrictions.
> The weird behaviour I am seeing is that despite a greylisting match
> (4xx) in sender restrictions, the recipient restrictions are still
> all being evaluated. In the logs, this looks as follows:
>
> postgrey[27226]: action=greylist, reason=new, client_name=unknown,
> client_address=120.28.68.66, [email protected],
> [email protected]
Replies with "defer_if_permit".
> postfwd2/policy[1002]: [RULES] rule=3, id=REJECT_HELO_NODNS,
> client=unknown[120.28.68.66], sender=<[email protected]>,
> recipient=<[email protected]>, helo=<[120.28.68.66]>,
> proto=ESMTP, state=RCPT, delay=0.00s,
> hits=SET_HELO;SET_NODNS;REJECT_HELO_NODNS, action=REJECT Blocked
> - Suspicious HELO [[120.28.68.66]] and missing reverse DNS
> [120.28.68.66]
> postfix/smtpd[14225]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
> unknown[120.28.68.66]: 554 5.7.1 <[email protected]>:
> Recipient address rejected: Blocked - Suspicious HELO
> [[120.28.68.66]] and missing reverse DNS [120.28.68.66];
> from=<[email protected]> to=<[email protected]>
> proto=ESMTP helo=<[120.28.68.66]>
Excellent, the mail got rejected, rather than deferred.
> In my case, the postgrey check in the sender restrictions returns
> DEFER, and the README leads me to assume that the recipient list
> would be skipped. But it is not.
Does it in fact return "DEFER"? My money is on "DEFER_IF_PERMIT".
--
Viktor.
