On 2021.11.09. 20:28, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] wrote:
This best matches my situation.
I cannot guarantee that all of my "customers" can send mail authenticated
and/or encrypted.
I think I can trim down "mynetworks"
Thanks for the responses.
On 11/9/21, 12:00, "owner-postfix-us...@
White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS]:
> This best matches my situation.
>
> I cannot guarantee that all of my "customers" can send mail authenticated
> and/or encrypted.
> I think I can trim down "mynetworks"
main.cf:
# Exclude the open relay tester at 1.2.3.4
mynetworks = !1.2.3.4 ...oth
This best matches my situation.
I cannot guarantee that all of my "customers" can send mail authenticated
and/or encrypted.
I think I can trim down "mynetworks"
Thanks for the responses.
On 11/9/21, 12:00, "owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of Jaroslaw
Rafa" wrote:
Dnia 9.11.20
On 2021.11.09. 18:59, Jaroslaw Rafa wrote:
Dnia 9.11.2021 o godz. 10:13:08 Bill Cole pisze:
NOTHING should be allowing SMTP relay based on IP
addresses in 2021, even inside RFC1918 networks. Anything sending
mail that can't do proper authentication at initial submission is
unfit for sending mai
Dnia 9.11.2021 o godz. 10:13:08 Bill Cole pisze:
> NOTHING should be allowing SMTP relay based on IP
> addresses in 2021, even inside RFC1918 networks. Anything sending
> mail that can't do proper authentication at initial submission is
> unfit for sending mail at all. Whatever legitimate mail act
On 2021-11-09 at 09:23:13 UTC-0500 (Tue, 9 Nov 2021 14:23:13 +)
White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS]
is rumored to have said:
Clarifying:
The relay did not reject the message. The MDA did the rejection. Is
this correct ?
Yes. LOCAL_MDA replied with a 4xx code, indicating to the relay t
Clarifying:
The relay did not reject the message. The MDA did the rejection. Is this
correct ?
How do I stop the empty sender address at the relay ?
On 11/9/21, 09:08, "owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of Jaroslaw
Rafa" wrote:
Dnia 9.11.2021 o godz. 13:47:28 White, Daniel E.
On 09.11.21 13:47, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] wrote:
On 11/9/21, 08:20, "owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of Matus UHLAR -
fantomas" wrote:
so the server successfully accepted mail to remote recipient. That's called
open relay.
Note that nessus can't know if it's in
Dnia 9.11.2021 o godz. 13:47:28 White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] pisze:
>
> Not practical. Based on the rejection log, which parameter will let
> postfix reject rather than defer ?
Postfix deferred the message, because it accepted it in the first place.
Then Postfix - trying to deliver the m
On 11/9/21, 08:20, "owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org on behalf of Matus UHLAR -
fantomas"
wrote:
so the server successfully accepted mail to remote recipient. That's called
open relay.
Note that nessus can't know if it's in server's $mynetwork.
>And from the maillog, I get th
On 09.11.21 13:11, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] wrote:
I found this bash script to let me test without using telnet:
https://gist.github.com/jsidhu/41cbfda16d487343a614ca0e271a660e
I tried it, adding a "-x" to the she-bang line to get output and I got this:
[ ~]$ sudo ./smtp.bash
++ date
by the
scanner were rejected. I went through the logs with a fine-toothed comb and
verified this. The stpid scanner is NOT seeing the rejections. I may need
to wireshark this before submitting a bug report to Tenable.
I will keep the list informed as stuff happens.
-Or
On 08.11.21 15:13, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] wrote:
Sorry for the delay, but the scanner had network issues and could not re-scan
the MTA
It turns out that the scanner is in the subnets defined by "mynetworks"
But here is the interesting part: all the message attempts made by the
sca
r 29, 2021 at 10:22
To: "postfix-users@postfix.org"
Subject: [Non-NASA Source][EXTERNAL] Re: Nessus says I have an open relay
AFAIK, it is on a different subnet than the ones in "mynetworks"
I can triple check with the team that runs them.
-Original Message-
L] Re: Nessus says I have an open relay
On 29.10.21 10:33, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] wrote:
>Nessus Plugin 10167: NTMail3 Arbitrary Mail Relay
>TCP post 25
[...]
>Nessus Plugin 11852: MTA Open Mail Relaying Allowed (thorough test)
>TCP port 25
>
On 29.10.21 10:33, White, Daniel E. (GSFC-770.0)[NICS] wrote:
Nessus Plugin 10167: NTMail3 Arbitrary Mail Relay
TCP post 25
[...]
Nessus Plugin 11852: MTA Open Mail Relaying Allowed (thorough test)
TCP port 25
Plugin Output:
Nessus was able to relay mails by sending those sequences :
[...]
Two "findings"
Nessus Plugin 10167: NTMail3 Arbitrary Mail Relay
TCP post 25
An open SMTP relay is running on the remote host.
Nessus has detected that the remote SMTP server allows anyone to use it as a
mail relay provided that the source address is set to '<>'.
This issue allows any spammer
17 matches
Mail list logo
