Greetings, Viktor Dukhovni!

> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 02:59:35AM +0300, Andrey Repin wrote:

>> The premise is this:
>> 1. All delivery should be handled directly, but...

>     #
>     relayhost =

That's not directly, that's "through relay".

>> 2. Some of our clients are rejecting mail using particularly idiotic RBL,
>>    however...

> Are the rejects 4XX or 5XX?

220-relay6.hosting.reg.ru ESMTP Postfix
521 5.7.1 Service unavailable; client [213.134.200.30] blocked using 
b.barracudacentral.org

>> 3. I have a relay server that usually works ok, although slower, but...

> You really should be more precise here.  Is the relay server doing STARTTLS
> (on either port 25 or 587) or implicit TLS (port 465)?

>> 4. Relay server requires TLS and authentication.

> What flavour of TLS?  STARTTLS (TLS after SMTP) or implicit TLS
> (SMTP after TLS)?

TLS as in - explicit TLS (port 465).

>> Now, I've successfully configured dumb relayhost= with TLS and auth.
>> But I'm failing to mate it with either relay_transport= or
>> smtp_fallback_relay=

> If the failures are confined to a mostly stable set of domains and are
> not infrequent, then you want to always route these domains to the
> relay via:

>     transport:
>         example.com     tlsrelay:[relayhost.example]:587
>         example.org     tlsrelay:[relayhost.example]:587
>         example.net     tlsrelay:[relayhost.example]:587
>         ...

>     master.cf:
>         #
> ==========================================================================
>         # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command + args
>         #               (yes)   (yes)   (no)    (never) (100)
>         #
> ==========================================================================
>         tlsrelay  unix  -       -       n       -       -       smtp
>             -o smtp_tls_CApath=$tlsrelay_CApath
>             -o smtp_tls_CAfile=$tlsrelay_CAfile
>             ...

Hm. I was near that solution, but you are right that it is only applicable to
a known set of domains.

>> It either not using fallback relay, complain that it requires 
>> wrappermode=yes,
>> or says that there were timeout waiting for server greeting.

> If the set of problem destinations is dynamic, or the failure sporadic,
> and a direct attempt makes sense, then:

>     master.cf:
>         #
> ==========================================================================
>         # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command + args
>         #               (yes)   (yes)   (no)    (never) (100)
>         #
> ==========================================================================
>         smtp      unix  -       -       n       -       -       smtp
>             -o smtp_fallback_relay=[relayhost.example]:587

Should use 465...
Which requires wrappermode=yes.
Which subsequently break any direct delivery.


-- 
With best regards,
Andrey Repin
Thursday, November 29, 2018 4:01:41

Sorry for my terrible english...

Reply via email to