postgrey is greylisting <>

Within postfix I can add this:

<>  OK

But should I have to do this or is there a better way with
postgrey not to 
filter the NULL sender?

I ask this because (roadrunner) and presumably other ISPs
sometimes perform a 
call back/bounce/check sender address verification and if
you greylist that 
bounce your mail never gets through!  I have seen this
multiple times now and 
its very irritating.

So is the proper fix to allow <> in postfix or can we
add a whitelist_senders 
section and add <> to postgrey?

Justin.

-- 
Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:41:36PM -0500, Justin Piszcz
wrote:
> 
> So is the proper fix to allow <> in postfix or
can we add a whitelist_senders 
> section and add <> to postgrey?

It's always better to do such whitelisting in postfix. Why
spend extra
resources letting the request get to postgrey?

-- 
Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi

On Wed, 9 Jan 2008, Henrik Krohns wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 03:41:36PM -0500, Justin Piszcz
wrote:
>>
>> So is the proper fix to allow <> in postfix
or can we add a whitelist_senders
>> section and add <> to postgrey?
>
> It's always better to do such whitelisting in postfix.
Why spend extra
> resources letting the request get to postgrey?
>
> -- 
> Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
> Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
> WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi
>

Well I am just wondering why the two authors differed 
(postgrey/policyd-weight), in Robert's code, he has:

     if($from eq '')
     {
         return('DUNNO NULL (<>) Sender');
     }
     my $orig_from   = $from;

Added into the script, so this is why I was 'used' to such
behavior, which 
is the preferred or recommended behavior?

Robert, why was your method chosen vs. using postfix?

Justin.

-- 
Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 16:11:18 -0500, Justin Piszcz
wrote:
> Well I am just wondering why the two authors differed 
> (postgrey/policyd-weight), in Robert's code, he has:
> 
>      if($from eq '')
>      {
>          return('DUNNO NULL (<>) Sender');
>      }
>      my $orig_from   = $from;

Note that postgrey and policyd-weight solve different
problems.
policyd-weight is used to block blacklisted IP addresses and
it is
probably a good idea to allow bounces from blocked IP
addresses.
Otherwise, these bounces will never get through.

With greylisting, on the other hand, the bounces (or sender
verification), can get through. The sender just needs to
play by the
rules.

Cheers
David

-- 
Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:11:18PM -0500, Justin Piszcz
wrote:
> 
> Robert, why was your method chosen vs. using postfix?

You are asking about two separate things.

The policy servers are "standalone", so of course
they should have some
whitelisting etc functionality themselves. They have no way
of knowing if
user is using postfix tables, or even knows that it's a
possibility. It
might be a good idea to atleast mention it in
documentation.

-- 
Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:10:55PM -0500, Justin Piszcz
wrote:
> Well I am just wondering why the two authors differed
(postgrey/policyd-weight), in Robert's code, he has:
> 
>     if($from eq '')
>     {
>         return('DUNNO NULL (<>) Sender');
>     }
>     my $orig_from   = $from;
> 
> Added into the script, so this is why I was 'used' to
such behavior, which is the preferred or recommended 
> behavior?

42
 
> Robert, why was your method chosen vs. using postfix?

This has also been discussed on 16th Oct 2007 on the polw
ML.
In msgid: 20071016175048.GA63983robtone.ek-muc.de [1] I
stated, that
the behaviour of polw might change.

The rationale behind polw allowing 
    sender: <> 
and 
    recipients: postmaster,abuse

was, to not touch RFC related addresses for _blocking_. I.e.
I didn't care
if there is a postfix way to do so, too. In future other
MTAs (exim) might
want to talk to polw, too.



1: http://news.gmane.org
/find-root.php?group=gmane.mail.postfix.policyd-weight&a
rticle=739



-- 
    Robert Felber (PGP: 896CF30B)
    Munich, Germany

-- 
Unsubscribe mailto:postgrey-requestlist.ee.ethz.ch?subject=unsubscribe
Archive     http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/postgrey
WebAdmin    http://lists.ee.ethz
.ch/lsg2.cgi