Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > On 01/01/2019 17:56, Wietse Venema wrote: > > John Fawcett: > JFTR, this is what a full implementation would look like. > A full implementation would update a new SMTP_STATE violation_mask > field for specific violation categories (syntax, pipelining, > plaintext

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread John Fawcett
On 01/01/2019 17:56, Wietse Venema wrote: > John Fawcett: JFTR, this is what a full implementation would look like. A full implementation would update a new SMTP_STATE violation_mask field for specific violation categories (syntax, pipelining, plaintext, relay, unverified-addres

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > >> JFTR, this is what a full implementation would look like. > >> A full implementation would update a new SMTP_STATE violation_mask > >> field for specific violation categories (syntax, pipelining, > >> plaintext, relay, unverified-address, unknown-user, access-deny, > >> dnsbl, tl

Re: Logging suggestion

2019-01-01 Thread John Fawcett
On 30/12/2018 20:20, John Fawcett wrote: > On 30/12/2018 18:05, Wietse Venema wrote: >> John Fawcett: >>> On 30/12/2018 01:19, Wietse Venema wrote: >>> Here's a revised patch implementing the above logging. >>> >>> I did not take out the existing pipelining logging since it provides >>> additional

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-30 Thread John Fawcett
On 30/12/2018 18:05, Wietse Venema wrote: > John Fawcett: >> On 30/12/2018 01:19, Wietse Venema wrote: >> Here's a revised patch implementing the above logging. >> >> I did not take out the existing pipelining logging since it provides >> additional info over the new error summary in the disconnect

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-30 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > On 30/12/2018 01:19, Wietse Venema wrote: > > John Fawcett: > >>> I would not log this for EVERY command. Especially because the > >>> logged text size by far exceeds the command size (each logfile > >>> record takes ~100 bytes, while the client needs to send only four > >>> charact

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-30 Thread John Fawcett
On 30/12/2018 01:19, Wietse Venema wrote: > John Fawcett: >>> I would not log this for EVERY command. Especially because the >>> logged text size by far exceeds the command size (each logfile >>> record takes ~100 bytes, while the client needs to send only four >>> characters plus CRLF. >>> >>> For

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > > I would not log this for EVERY command. Especially because the > > logged text size by far exceeds the command size (each logfile > > record takes ~100 bytes, while the client needs to send only four > > characters plus CRLF. > > > > For example, Postfix logs pipelining errors inc

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread John Fawcett
On 29/12/2018 23:20, Wietse Venema wrote: > Sorry, I did not recognize the diff because all whitespace was using > UTF8 code points, and I read mail with a text editor that is optimized > for programing, not for text processing. > > After fixing the whitespace: Thanks for reviewing it further. I've

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread Wietse Venema
Sorry, I did not recognize the diff because all whitespace was using UTF8 code points, and I read mail with a text editor that is optimized for programing, not for text processing. After fixing the whitespace: > --- smtpd/smtpd.c.orig2018-12-28 13:18:55.427162049 +0100 > +++ smtpd/smtpd.c

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread Wietse Venema
John Fawcett: > Hi > > I'd like to make two suggestions for additional logging. > > The first one is to leave an explicit trace in the log when starttls is > enforced (for example on the submission port) but the client does not > issue STARTTLS. There is no code in Postfix to log something that

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread John Fawcett
On 29/12/2018 13:59, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote: > * John Fawcett : >> The first one is to leave an explicit trace in the log when starttls is >> enforced (for example on the submission port) but the client does not >> issue STARTTLS. > Have you tried to set reject_plaintext_session and trace its er

Re: Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread Patrick Ben Koetter
* John Fawcett : > The first one is to leave an explicit trace in the log when starttls is > enforced (for example on the submission port) but the client does not > issue STARTTLS. Have you tried to set reject_plaintext_session and trace its error message in the log? p@rick -- [*] sys4 AG h

Logging suggestion

2018-12-29 Thread John Fawcett
Hi I'd like to make two suggestions for additional logging. The first one is to leave an explicit trace in the log when starttls is enforced (for example on the submission port) but the client does not issue STARTTLS. The second one is to explicitly log that a protocol error has occurred. Curren