Stan Hoeppner wrote: > 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. >
I think not. As others already have proven, you made a hasty judgement upon faulty information. My only motivation getting into this discussion was to prevent faulty information to make it to the list archives without correction. Mikael
