Postfix Open Relay Issue
My postfix email server has been listed by dsnbl.njabl.org as an open relay, but I'm not sure why. I tested the server from another site, and it passes every test.
My main.cf is setup with the following:
header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/maps/header_checks
mime_header_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/maps/mime_header_checks
body_checks = regexp:/etc/postfix/maps/body_checks
resolve_dequoted_address = yes
Is there something obvious that I'm missing here?
Thanks for your help -
did you look here
as my first line of defense I always send an email with telnet
Send Email via Telnet
and use bogus to's and from's so I can test for myself.
So the question is, can you connect to your mail server and not authenticate, and send an email?
According to njabl.org, their test was the following:
From email@example.com Sat Oct 17 05:32:25 2009
Received: from mail.myemailserver.com (mail.myemailserver.com [184.108.40.206])
by rt.njabl.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9H9WJJt022844
for <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:32:19 -0400
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by mail.myemailserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B229611B8534
for <email@example.com>; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:32:19 -0400 (EDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at myemailserver.com
Received: from mail.myemailserver.com ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (plq139.myemailserver.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id qo1fYAx8Ijq4 for <firstname.lastname@example.org>;
Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:32:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rt.njabl.org (unknown [220.127.116.11])
by mail.myemailserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCF3411B8530
for <email@example.com>; Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
X-RT-Subject: relaytest: 18.104.22.168
Subject: relaytest: 22.214.171.124
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:32:13 -0400 (EDT)
So it looks like they said they were "firstname.lastname@example.org", and my postfix was okay with that, even though the server they connected from was not myemailserver.com.... How would I adjust my config for that?