I see the following syslog entries for a message from the local public
library system when I have reject_unknown_sender_domain in
smtpd_recipient_restrictions:

Nov 25 14:06:23 gob postfix/smtpd[19293]: connect from
unknown[12.229.68.221]
Nov 25 14:06:23 gob postfix/smtpd[19293]: warning:
221.68.229.12.zen.spamhaus.org: RBL lookup error: Host or domain name not
found. Name service error for name=221.68.229.12.zen.spamhaus.org type=A:
Host not found, try again
Nov 25 14:06:23 gob postfix/smtpd[19293]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[12.229.68.221]: 450 4.1.8 <circ...@lcplin.org>: Sender address
rejected: Domain not found; from=<circ...@lcplin.org> to=<[REDACTED]@
BERGMANS.US> proto=ESMTP helo=<sangria.lcplin.org>
Nov 25 14:06:23 gob postfix/smtpd[19293]: disconnect from
unknown[12.229.68.221]


Their A and MX records for the sending domain and the A record for the host
in HELO look typical and sane to me, but they have a setup for "reverse"
DNS I don't believe I've seen before:

$ dig -x 12.229.68.221

; <<>> DiG 9.8.4-rpz2+rl005.12-P1 <<>> -x 12.229.68.221
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 19095
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;221.68.229.12.in-addr.arpa.    IN      PTR

;; ANSWER SECTION:
221.68.229.12.in-addr.arpa. 85298 IN    CNAME
221.128/25.68.229.12.in-addr.arpa.
221.128/25.68.229.12.in-addr.arpa. 9698 IN PTR  sangria.lcplin.org.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
128/25.68.229.12.in-addr.arpa. 85298 IN NS      donuts1.lcplin.org.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
donuts1.lcplin.org.     85214   IN      A       12.229.68.200

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: ::1#53(::1)
;; WHEN: Tue Nov 26 19:21:26 2013
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 139


So my questions are:

   1. Is this actually what's causing the rejection?
   2. If the answer to (1) is yes, then is this a Postfix bug or a feature?
   I'm happy to write the administrators of lcplin.org and ask them to fix
   their zone, but I can't really cite chapter and verse as to why it's wrong.
   In fact, I'm not convinced it is.

Best,
-- Lucas

Reply via email to