On 01/21/2011 04:56 PM, Noel Jones wrote:
> On 1/21/2011 5:08 PM, Condor wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>> i have postfix 2.7.2 and i have problem with restrictions. I setup
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions here is my main.cf config file:
>>
>> smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
>>    permit_mynetworks,
>>    permit_sasl_authenticated,
>>    check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_checks,
>>    check_sender_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_checks,
>>    check_recipient_access pcre:/etc/postfix/recipient_checks.pcre,
>>    reject_unauth_destination,
>>    reject_invalid_hostname,
>>    reject_unauth_pipelining,
>>    reject_non_fqdn_sender,
>>    reject_unknown_sender_domain,
>>    reject_non_fqdn_recipient,
>>    reject_unknown_recipient_domain,
>>    reject_unlisted_sender,
>>    reject_rhsbl_client blackhole.securitysage.com,
>>    reject_rhsbl_sender blackhole.securitysage.com,
>>    reject_rbl_client relays.ordb.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client blackholes.easynet.nl,
>>    reject_rbl_client cbl.abuseat.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client proxies.blackholes.wirehub.net,
>>    reject_rbl_client bl.spamcop.net,
>>    reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client opm.blitzed.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client dnsbl.njabl.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client list.dsbl.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client multihop.dsbl.org,
>>    reject_rbl_client pbl.spamhaus.org,
>>    permit
>>
>> That file pcre:/etc/postfix/recipient_checks.pcre contain:
>> /^\@/           550 Invalid address format.
>> /[!%\@].*\@/    550 This server disallows weird address syntax.
>> /^postmaster\@/ OK
>> /^hostmaster\@/ OK
>> /^abuse\@/      OK
>> /^nobody\@/     REJECT
> 
> Don't escape the @ in pcre tables. ie:
> /^nobody@/ REJECT  nobody isn't here.
> 

Additionally, doesn't this configuration make the server in question an
open relay?  The recipient_checks.pcre file returns an OK when the RHS
of an email address is anything for an LHS of postmater, hostmaster, and
abuse, and it immediately precedes reject_unauth_destination in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions.

What is the purpose of configuring recipient validation in such a
manner?  The OP would be better served by correctly configuring the
proper address classes.

-Mike

Reply via email to