diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'README_FILES/SMTPD_ACCESS_README')
| -rw-r--r-- | README_FILES/SMTPD_ACCESS_README | 346 |
1 files changed, 346 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/README_FILES/SMTPD_ACCESS_README b/README_FILES/SMTPD_ACCESS_README new file mode 100644 index 0000000..230204a --- /dev/null +++ b/README_FILES/SMTPD_ACCESS_README @@ -0,0 +1,346 @@ +PPoossttffiixx SSMMTTPP rreellaayy aanndd aacccceessss ccoonnttrrooll + +------------------------------------------------------------------------------- + +IInnttrroodduuccttiioonn + +The Postfix SMTP server receives mail from the network and is exposed to the +big bad world of junk email and viruses. This document introduces the built-in +and external methods that control what SMTP mail Postfix will accept, what +mistakes to avoid, and how to test your configuration. + +Topics covered in this document: + + * Relay control, junk mail control, and per-user policies + * Restrictions that apply to all SMTP mail + * Getting selective with SMTP access restriction lists + * Delayed evaluation of SMTP access restriction lists + * Dangerous use of smtpd_recipient_restrictions + * SMTP access rule testing + +RReellaayy ccoonnttrrooll,, jjuunnkk mmaaiill ccoonnttrrooll,, aanndd ppeerr--uusseerr ppoolliicciieess + +In a distant past, the Internet was a friendly environment. Mail servers +happily forwarded mail on behalf of anyone towards any destination. On today's +Internet, spammers abuse servers that forward mail from arbitrary systems, and +abused systems end up on anti-spammer blacklists. See, for example, the +information on http://www.mail-abuse.org/ and other websites. + +By default, Postfix has a moderately restrictive approach to mail relaying. +Postfix forwards mail only from clients in trusted networks, from clients that +have authenticated with SASL, or to domains that are configured as authorized +relay destinations. For a description of the default mail relay policy, see the +smtpd_relay_restrictions parameter in the postconf(5) manual page, and the +information that is referenced from there. + + NOTE: Postfix versions before 2.10 did not have smtpd_relay_restrictions. + They combined the mail relay and spam blocking policies, under + smtpd_recipient_restrictions. This could lead to unexpected results. For + example, a permissive spam blocking policy could unexpectedly result in a + permissive mail relay policy. An example of this is documented under + "Dangerous use of smtpd_recipient_restrictions". + +Most of the Postfix SMTP server access controls are targeted at stopping junk +email. + + * Protocol oriented: some SMTP server access controls block mail by being + very strict with respect to the SMTP protocol; these catch poorly + implemented and/or poorly configured junk email software, as well as email + worms that come with their own non-standard SMTP client implementations. + Protocol-oriented access controls become less useful over time as spammers + and worm writers learn to read RFC documents. + + * Blacklist oriented: some SMTP server access controls query blacklists with + known to be bad sites such as open mail relays, open web proxies, and home + computers that have been compromised and that are under remote control by + criminals. The effectiveness of these blacklists depends on how complete + and how up to date they are. + + * Threshold oriented: some SMTP server access controls attempt to raise the + bar by either making the client do more work (greylisting) or by asking for + a second opinion (SPF and sender/recipient address verification). The + greylisting and SPF policies are implemented externally, and are the + subject of the SMTPD_POLICY_README document. Sender/recipient address + verification is the subject of the ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README document. + +Unfortunately, all junk mail controls have the possibility of falsely rejecting +legitimate mail. This can be a problem for sites with many different types of +users. For some users it is unacceptable when any junk email slips through, +while for other users the world comes to an end when a single legitimate email +message is blocked. Because there is no single policy that is "right" for all +users, Postfix supports different SMTP access restrictions for different users. +This is described in the RESTRICTION_CLASS_README document. + +RReessttrriiccttiioonnss tthhaatt aappppllyy ttoo aallll SSMMTTPP mmaaiill + +Besides the restrictions that can be made configurable per client or per user +as described in the next section, Postfix implements a few restrictions that +apply to all SMTP mail. + + * The built-in header_checks and body_checks content restrictions, as + described in the BUILTIN_FILTER_README document. This happens while Postfix + receives mail, before it is stored in the incoming queue. + + * The external before-queue content restrictions, as described in the + SMTPD_PROXY_README document. This happens while Postfix receives mail, + before it is stored in the incoming queue. + + * Requiring that the client sends the HELO or EHLO command before sending the + MAIL FROM or ETRN command. This may cause problems with home-grown + applications that send mail. For this reason, the requirement is disabled + by default ("smtpd_helo_required = no"). + + * Disallowing illegal syntax in MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands. This may cause + problems with home-grown applications that send mail, and with ancient PC + mail clients. For this reason, the requirement is disabled by default + ("strict_rfc821_envelopes = no"). + + o Disallowing RFC 822 address syntax (example: "MAIL FROM: the dude + <dude@example.com>"). + + o Disallowing addresses that are not enclosed with <> (example: "MAIL + FROM: dude@example.com"). + + * Rejecting mail from a non-existent sender address. This form of egress + filtering helps to slow down worms and other malware, but may cause + problems with home-grown software that sends out mail software with an + unreplyable address. For this reason the requirement is disabled by default + ("smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = no"). + + * Rejecting mail for a non-existent recipient address. This form of ingress + filtering helps to keep the mail queue free of undeliverable MAILER-DAEMON + messages. This requirement is enabled by default + ("smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient = yes"). + +GGeettttiinngg sseelleeccttiivvee wwiitthh SSMMTTPP aacccceessss rreessttrriiccttiioonn lliissttss + +Postfix allows you to specify lists of access restrictions for each stage of +the SMTP conversation. Individual restrictions are described in the postconf(5) +manual page. + +Examples of simple restriction lists are: + +/etc/postfix/main.cf: + # Allow connections from trusted networks only. + smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject + + # Don't talk to mail systems that don't know their own hostname. + # With Postfix < 2.3, specify reject_unknown_hostname. + smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_unknown_helo_hostname + + # Don't accept mail from domains that don't exist. + smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_unknown_sender_domain + + # Spam control: exclude local clients and authenticated clients + # from DNSBL lookups. + smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, + permit_sasl_authenticated, + # reject_unauth_destination is not needed here if the mail + # relay policy is specified under smtpd_relay_restrictions + # (available with Postfix 2.10 and later). + reject_unauth_destination + reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org, + reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org, + reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org, + reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org + + # Relay control (Postfix 2.10 and later): local clients and + # authenticated clients may specify any destination domain. + smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, + permit_sasl_authenticated, + reject_unauth_destination + + # Block clients that speak too early. + smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining + + # Enforce mail volume quota via policy service callouts. + smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions = check_policy_service unix:private/policy + +Each restriction list is evaluated from left to right until some restriction +produces a result of PERMIT, REJECT or DEFER (try again later). The end of each +list is equivalent to a PERMIT result. By placing a PERMIT restriction before a +REJECT restriction you can make exceptions for specific clients or users. This +is called whitelisting; the fourth example above allows mail from local +networks but otherwise rejects mail to arbitrary destinations. + +The table below summarizes the purpose of each SMTP access restriction list. +All lists use the exact same syntax; they differ only in the time of evaluation +and in the effect of a REJECT or DEFER result. + + _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ + | | | |EEffffeecctt ooff | + |RReessttrriiccttiioonn lliisstt nnaammee |VVeerrssiioonn|SSttaattuuss |RREEJJEECCTT oorr | + | | | |DDEEFFEERR | + | | | |rreessuulltt | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + | | | |Reject all | + |smtpd_client_restrictions |All |Optional |client | + | | | |commands | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + | | | |Reject | + |smtpd_helo_restrictions |All |Optional |HELO/EHLO | + | | | |information| + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + | | | |Reject MAIL| + |smtpd_sender_restrictions |All |Optional |FROM | + | | | |information| + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + | | |Required if | | + | |>= 2.10|smtpd_relay_restrictions | | + | | |does not enforce relay |Reject RCPT| + |smtpd_recipient_restrictions | |policy |TO | + | |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |information| + | | | | | + | |< 2.10 |Required | | + | | | | | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + | | |Required if | | + | |>= 2.10|smtpd_recipient_restrictions| | + | | |does not enforce relay |Reject RCPT| + |smtpd_relay_restrictions | |policy |TO | + | |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ |information| + | | | | | + | |< 2.10 |Not available | | + | | | | | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + |smtpd_data_restrictions |>= 2.0 |Optional |Reject DATA| + | | | |command | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + | | | |Reject END-| + |smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions|>= 2.2 |Optional |OF-DATA | + | | | |command | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + |smtpd_etrn_restrictions |All |Optional |Reject ETRN| + | | | |command | + |_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _|_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ | + +DDeellaayyeedd eevvaalluuaattiioonn ooff SSMMTTPP aacccceessss rreessttrriiccttiioonn lliissttss + +Early Postfix versions evaluated SMTP access restrictions lists as early as +possible. The client restriction list was evaluated before Postfix sent the +"220 $myhostname..." greeting banner to the SMTP client, the helo restriction +list was evaluated before Postfix replied to the HELO (EHLO) command, the +sender restriction list was evaluated before Postfix replied to the MAIL FROM +command, and so on. This approach turned out to be difficult to use. + +Current Postfix versions postpone the evaluation of client, helo and sender +restriction lists until the RCPT TO or ETRN command. This behavior is +controlled by the smtpd_delay_reject parameter. Restriction lists are still +evaluated in the proper order of (client, helo, etrn) or (client, helo, sender, +relay, recipient, data, or end-of-data) restrictions. When a restriction list +(example: client) evaluates to REJECT or DEFER the restriction lists that +follow (example: helo, sender, etc.) are skipped. + +Around the time that smtpd_delay_reject was introduced, Postfix was also +changed to support mixed restriction lists that combine information about the +client, helo, sender and recipient or etrn command. + +Benefits of delayed restriction evaluation, and of restriction mixing: + + * Some SMTP clients do not expect a negative reply early in the SMTP session. + When the bad news is postponed until the RCPT TO reply, the client goes + away as it is supposed to, instead of hanging around until a timeout + happens, or worse, going into an endless connect-reject-connect loop. + + * Postfix can log more useful information. For example, when Postfix rejects + a client name or address and delays the action until the RCPT TO command, + it can log the sender and the recipient address. This is more useful than + logging only the client hostname and IP address and not knowing whose mail + was being blocked. + + * Mixing is needed for complex whitelisting policies. For example, in order + to reject local sender addresses in mail from non-local clients, you need + to be able to mix restrictions on client information with restrictions on + sender information in the same restriction list. Without this ability, many + per-user access restrictions would be impossible to express. + +DDaannggeerroouuss uussee ooff ssmmttppdd__rreecciippiieenntt__rreessttrriiccttiioonnss + +By now the reader may wonder why we need smtpd client, helo or sender +restrictions, when their evaluation is postponed until the RCPT TO or ETRN +command. Some people recommend placing ALL the access restrictions in the +smtpd_recipient_restrictions list. Unfortunately, this can result in too +permissive access. How is this possible? + +The purpose of the smtpd_recipient_restrictions feature is to control how +Postfix replies to the RCPT TO command. If the restriction list evaluates to +REJECT or DEFER, the recipient address is rejected; no surprises here. If the +result is PERMIT, then the recipient address is accepted. And this is where +surprises can happen. + +The problem is that Postfix versions before 2.10 did not have +smtpd_relay_restrictions. They combined the mail relay and spam blocking +policies, under smtpd_recipient_restrictions. The result is that a permissive +spam blocking policy could unexpectedly result in a permissive mail relay +policy. + +Here is an example that shows when a PERMIT result can result in too much +access permission: + +1 /etc/postfix/main.cf: +2 smtpd_recipient_restrictions = +3 permit_mynetworks +4 check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access +5 reject_unknown_helo_hostname +6 rreejjeecctt__uunnaauutthh__ddeessttiinnaattiioonn +7 +8 /etc/postfix/helo_access: +9 localhost.localdomain PERMIT + +Line 5 rejects mail from hosts that don't specify a proper hostname in the HELO +command (with Postfix < 2.3, specify reject_unknown_hostname). Lines 4 and 9 +make an exception to allow mail from some machine that announces itself with +"HELO localhost.localdomain". + +The problem with this configuration is that smtpd_recipient_restrictions +evaluates to PERMIT for EVERY host that announces itself as +"localhost.localdomain", making Postfix an open relay for all such hosts. + +With Postfix before version 2.10 you should place non-recipient restrictions +AFTER the reject_unauth_destination restriction, not before. In the above +example, the HELO based restrictions should be placed AFTER +reject_unauth_destination, or better, the HELO based restrictions should be +placed under smtpd_helo_restrictions where they can do no harm. + +1 /etc/postfix/main.cf: +2 smtpd_recipient_restrictions = +3 permit_mynetworks +4 rreejjeecctt__uunnaauutthh__ddeessttiinnaattiioonn +5 check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access +6 reject_unknown_helo_hostname +7 +8 /etc/postfix/helo_access: +9 localhost.localdomain PERMIT + +The above mistake will not happen with Postfix 2.10 and later, when the relay +policy is specified under smtpd_relay_restrictions, and the spam blocking +policy under smtpd_recipient_restrictions. Then, a permissive spam blocking +policy will not result in a permissive mail relay policy. + +SSMMTTPP aacccceessss rruullee tteessttiinngg + +Postfix has several features that aid in SMTP access rule testing: + +soft_bounce + This is a safety net that changes SMTP server REJECT actions into DEFER + (try again later) actions. This keeps mail queued that would otherwise be + returned to the sender. Specify "soft_bounce = yes" in the main.cf file to + prevent the Postfix SMTP server from rejecting mail permanently, by + changing all 5xx SMTP reply codes into 4xx. + +warn_if_reject + When placed before a reject-type restriction, access table query, or + check_policy_service query, this logs a "reject_warning" message instead of + rejecting a request (when a reject-type restriction fails due to a + temporary error, this logs a "reject_warning" message for any implicit + "defer_if_permit" actions that would normally prevent mail from being + accepted by some later access restriction). This feature has no effect on + defer_if_reject restrictions. + +XCLIENT + With this feature, an authorized SMTP client can impersonate other systems + and perform realistic SMTP access rule tests. Examples of how to + impersonate other systems for access rule testing are given at the end of + the XCLIENT_README document. + This feature is available in Postfix 2.1. + |