On Sun, 13 May 2018, 04:01 James, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I use it. I like it. But... real world can/will bite you in the ass: > > > > Yes, it can. Note this Received header from *your* message: > > > >> Received: from trackivity.com (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:0:205::2]) > >> (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) > >> (No client certificate requested) > >> by english-breakfast.cloud9.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id > A7ADC33260A > >> for <[email protected]>; Sat, 12 May 2018 18:45:26 -0400 > >> (EDT) > > > > So, it is good that the mail server handling this list does not use > > reject_unknown_client_hostname > > <Sigh /> > > My DNS server is in fact set up correctly for this, and I have requested > that reverse DNS be delegated down to it, but that delegation hasn't > happened yet. > > Hardly any traffic that I get is IPv6, and this postfix mailing list > probably accounts for most of it. > > Bottom line: no, it's not perfect, but it currently does what I need, > and I can reasonably expect that the rest will improve over time. > > So this actually makes an excellent example for the subject of this > thread: "reject_unknown_client_hostname", I use it, I like it, and I > reliably send and receive all the SMTP email that I feel is necessary. > Occasionally there are wobbles but it's never been a crisis. Watch your > logs. Your mileage will vary What do people think about reject_unknown_reverse_client_hostname? I use this presuming it to be safe, and it blocks lots of stuff.
