Stan, thanks for your answer.

Searching heavily the list I found that this problem was related to
firewall issues, specially when the firewall does a sort of SMTP
(layer 7) validation or check.

I disabled some features on my H3C firewall (ASPF - Application
Specific Packet Filter) related only to SMTP and everything works fine
now again.

I like to thanks all the other members of the list for their
contribution on this issue, specially Wietse. I am surprised how some
modern firewalls are poorly implemented when dealing with SMTP.
Postfix really opens a wide knowledge about RFCs and all the SMTP
resources.

Your suggestions about reject_unauth_destination are right and now
implemented in my production server. Thank you again for this advise.

Regards,



--
Klaus Engelmann
CCNA CCDA - CSCO10971632
LPIC-2 - LPI000138061



On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
> Klaus Engelmann put forth on 8/20/2010 11:25 AM:
>> Hi list,
>>
>> I searched the forum looking for some ideas about the following error
>> that is growing increasingly in my POSTFIX deployment:
>>
>> Aug 20 08:41:40 prometeu postfix/smtpd[16568]: lost connection after
>> EHLO from mail2.netpoint.com.br[187.16.24.50]
>
> I doubt this has anything to do with load.
>
> Look at _all_ the log entries for this transaction queue ID, and the others.
> I'm guessing you'll see that the following restrictions are likely involved.
> These entries are _not errors_ but are informational only.  These
> disconnections all occur during the helo phase, which is likely due to the
> client hanging up after a Postfix rejection based on a helo restriction.
>
> reject_non_fqdn_helo_hostname,
> reject_invalid_helo_hostname,
> check_helo_access regexp:/etc/postfix/helo-blacklist/smtp_helo_blacklist,
>
> Also, I recommend moving reject_unauth_destination to just below
> permit_sasl_authenticated.  Having it after your whitelist checks, as you
> currently do, could potentially make your host an open relay under some
> circumstances.
>
> --
> Stan
>

Reply via email to