xref: /netbsd-src/external/ibm-public/postfix/dist/proto/SMTPD_ACCESS_README.html (revision 33881f779a77dce6440bdc44610d94de75bebefe)
1<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
2        "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
3
4<html>
5
6<head>
7
8<title>Postfix SMTP relay and access control  </title>
9
10<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
11
12</head>
13
14<body>
15
16<h1><img src="postfix-logo.jpg" width="203" height="98" ALT="">Postfix
17SMTP relay and access control </h1>
18
19<hr>
20
21<h2> Introduction </h2>
22
23<p> The Postfix SMTP server receives mail from the network and is
24exposed to the big bad world of junk email and viruses. This document
25introduces the built-in and external methods that control what SMTP
26mail Postfix will accept, what mistakes to avoid, and how to test
27your configuration.  </p>
28
29<p> Topics covered in this document: </p>
30
31<ul>
32
33<li> <a href="#relay"> Relay control, junk mail control, and per-user
34policies </a>
35
36<li> <a href="#global"> Restrictions that apply to all SMTP mail
37</a>
38
39<li> <a href="#lists"> Getting selective with SMTP access restriction
40lists </a>
41
42<li> <a href="#timing"> Delayed evaluation of SMTP access restriction lists </a>
43
44<li> <a href="#danger"> Dangerous use of smtpd_recipient_restrictions
45</a>
46
47<li> <a href="#testing"> SMTP access rule testing </a>
48
49</ul>
50
51<h2> <a name="relay"> Relay control, junk mail control, and per-user
52policies </a> </h2>
53
54<p> In a distant past, the Internet was a friendly environment.
55Mail servers happily forwarded mail on behalf of anyone towards
56any destination.  On today's Internet, spammers abuse servers that
57forward mail from arbitrary systems, and abused systems end up on
58anti-spammer blacklists.  See, for example, the information on
59http://www.mail-abuse.org/ and other websites.  </p>
60
61<p> By default, Postfix has a moderately restrictive approach to
62mail relaying. Postfix forwards mail only from clients in trusted
63networks, from clients that have authenticated with SASL, or to
64domains that are configured as authorized relay
65destinations. For a description of the default mail relay policy,
66see the smtpd_relay_restrictions parameter in the postconf(5) manual
67page, and the information that is referenced from there. </p>
68
69<blockquote> <p> NOTE: Postfix versions before 2.10 did not have
70smtpd_relay_restrictions. They combined the mail relay and spam
71blocking policies, under smtpd_recipient_restrictions.  This could
72lead to unexpected results.  For example, a permissive spam blocking
73policy could unexpectedly result in a permissive mail relay policy.
74An example of this is documented under "<a href="#danger">Dangerous
75use of smtpd_recipient_restrictions</a>".  </p> </blockquote>
76
77<p> Most of the Postfix SMTP server access controls are targeted
78at stopping junk email. </p>
79
80<ul>
81
82<li> <p> Protocol oriented: some SMTP server access controls block
83mail by being very strict with respect to the SMTP protocol; these
84catch poorly implemented and/or poorly configured junk email
85software, as well as email worms that come with their own non-standard
86SMTP client implementations.  Protocol-oriented access controls
87become less useful over time as spammers and worm writers learn to
88read RFC documents.  </p>
89
90<li> <p> Blacklist oriented: some SMTP server access controls
91query blacklists with known to be bad sites such as open mail
92relays, open web proxies, and home computers that have been
93compromised and that are under remote control by criminals. The
94effectiveness of these blacklists depends on how complete and how
95up to date they are. </p>
96
97<li> <p> Threshold oriented: some SMTP server access controls attempt
98to raise the bar by either making the client do more work (greylisting)
99or by asking for a second opinion (SPF and sender/recipient address
100verification).  The greylisting and SPF policies are implemented
101externally, and are the subject of the SMTPD_POLICY_README document.
102Sender/recipient address verification is the subject of the
103ADDRESS_VERIFICATION_README document. </p>
104
105</ul>
106
107<p> Unfortunately, all junk mail controls have the possibility of
108falsely rejecting legitimate mail.  This can be a problem for sites
109with many different types of users.  For some users it is unacceptable
110when any junk email slips through, while for other users the world
111comes to an end when a single legitimate email message is blocked.
112Because there is no single policy that is "right" for all users,
113Postfix supports different SMTP access restrictions for different
114users.  This is described in the RESTRICTION_CLASS_README document.
115</p>
116
117<h2> <a name="global"> Restrictions that apply to all SMTP mail </a> </h2>
118
119<p> Besides the restrictions that can be made configurable per
120client or per user as described in the next section, Postfix
121implements a few restrictions that apply to all SMTP mail.  </p>
122
123<ul>
124
125<li> <p> The built-in header_checks and body_checks content
126restrictions, as described in the BUILTIN_FILTER_README document.
127This happens while Postfix receives mail, before it is stored in
128the incoming queue.  </p>
129
130<li> <p> The external before-queue content restrictions, as described
131in the SMTPD_PROXY_README document.  This happens while Postfix
132receives mail, before it is stored in the incoming queue.  </p>
133
134<li> <p> Requiring that the client sends the HELO or EHLO command
135before sending the MAIL FROM or ETRN command. This may cause problems
136with home-grown applications that send mail.  For this reason, the
137requirement is disabled by default ("smtpd_helo_required = no").
138</p>
139
140<li> <p> Disallowing illegal syntax in MAIL FROM or RCPT TO commands.
141This may cause problems with home-grown applications that send
142mail, and with ancient PC mail clients.  For this reason, the
143requirement is disabled by default ("strict_rfc821_envelopes =
144no").  </p>
145
146<ul>
147
148<li> <p> Disallowing RFC 822 address syntax (example: "MAIL FROM: the
149dude &lt;dude@example.com&gt;"). </p>
150
151<li> <p> Disallowing addresses that are not enclosed with &lt;&gt;
152(example: "MAIL FROM: dude@example.com"). </p>
153
154</ul>
155
156<li> <p> Rejecting mail from a non-existent sender address.  This form
157of egress filtering helps to slow down worms and other malware, but
158may cause problems with home-grown software that sends out mail
159software with an unreplyable address. For this reason the requirement
160is disabled by default ("smtpd_reject_unlisted_sender = no").  </p>
161
162<li> <p> Rejecting mail for a non-existent recipient address.  This
163form of ingress filtering helps to keep the mail queue free of
164undeliverable MAILER-DAEMON messages. This requirement is enabled
165by default ("smtpd_reject_unlisted_recipient = yes"). </p>
166
167</ul>
168
169<h2> <a name="lists"> Getting selective with SMTP access restriction
170lists </a> </h2>
171
172<p> Postfix allows you to specify lists of access restrictions for
173each stage of the SMTP conversation. Individual restrictions are
174described in the postconf(5) manual page. </p>
175
176<p> Examples of simple restriction lists are: </p>
177
178<pre>
179/etc/postfix/main.cf:
180    # Allow connections from trusted networks only.
181    smtpd_client_restrictions = permit_mynetworks, reject
182
183    # Don't talk to mail systems that don't know their own hostname.
184    # With Postfix &lt; 2.3, specify reject_unknown_hostname.
185    smtpd_helo_restrictions = reject_unknown_helo_hostname
186
187    # Don't accept mail from domains that don't exist.
188    smtpd_sender_restrictions = reject_unknown_sender_domain
189
190    # Spam control: exclude local clients and authenticated clients
191    # from DNSBL lookups.
192    smtpd_recipient_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
193	permit_sasl_authenticated,
194	# reject_unauth_destination is not needed here if the mail
195	# relay policy is specified under smtpd_relay_restrictions
196	# (available with Postfix 2.10 and later).
197	reject_unauth_destination
198	reject_rbl_client zen.spamhaus.org,
199	reject_rhsbl_reverse_client dbl.spamhaus.org,
200	reject_rhsbl_helo dbl.spamhaus.org,
201	reject_rhsbl_sender dbl.spamhaus.org
202
203    # Relay control (Postfix 2.10 and later): local clients and
204    # authenticated clients may specify any destination domain.
205    smtpd_relay_restrictions = permit_mynetworks,
206	permit_sasl_authenticated,
207	reject_unauth_destination
208
209    # Block clients that speak too early.
210    smtpd_data_restrictions = reject_unauth_pipelining
211
212    # Enforce mail volume quota via policy service callouts.
213    smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions = check_policy_service unix:private/policy
214</pre>
215
216<p> Each restriction list is evaluated from left to right until
217some restriction produces a result of PERMIT, REJECT or DEFER (try
218again later).  The end of each list is equivalent to a PERMIT result.
219By placing a PERMIT restriction before a REJECT restriction you
220can make exceptions for specific clients or users. This is called
221whitelisting; the fourth example above allows mail from local
222networks but otherwise rejects mail to arbitrary destinations. </p>
223
224<p> The table below summarizes the purpose of each SMTP access
225restriction list. All lists use the exact same syntax; they differ
226only in the time of evaluation and in the effect of a REJECT or
227DEFER result. </p>
228
229<blockquote>
230
231<table border="1">
232
233<tr> <th> Restriction list name </th> <th> Version </th> <th> Status
234</th> <th> Effect
235of REJECT or DEFER result </th> </tr>
236
237<tr> <td> smtpd_client_restrictions </td> <td> All </td> <td>
238Optional </td> <td>
239Reject all client commands </td> </tr>
240
241<tr> <td> smtpd_helo_restrictions </td> <td> All </td> <td> Optional
242</td> <td>
243Reject HELO/EHLO information </td> </tr>
244
245<tr> <td> smtpd_sender_restrictions </td> <td> All </td> <td>
246Optional </td> <td>
247Reject MAIL FROM information </td> </tr>
248
249<tr> <td rowspan="2"> smtpd_recipient_restrictions </td> <td> &ge;
2502.10 </td> <td> Required if smtpd_relay_restrictions does not enforce
251relay policy</td>
252<td rowspan="2"> Reject RCPT TO information </td> </tr>
253
254<tr> <td> &lt; 2.10</td> <td> Required </td> </tr>
255
256<tr> <td rowspan="2"> smtpd_relay_restrictions </td> <td> &ge; 2.10
257</td> <td> Required if smtpd_recipient_restrictions does not enforce
258relay policy</td>
259<td rowspan="2"> Reject RCPT TO information </td> </tr>
260
261<tr> <td> &lt; 2.10</td> <td> Not available </td>
262</tr>
263
264<tr> <td> smtpd_data_restrictions </td> <td> &ge; 2.0 </td> <td>
265Optional </td> <td>
266Reject DATA command </td> </tr>
267
268<tr> <td> smtpd_end_of_data_restrictions </td> <td> &ge; 2.2 </td>
269<td> Optional </td> <td>
270Reject END-OF-DATA command </td> </tr>
271
272<tr> <td> smtpd_etrn_restrictions </td> <td> All </td> <td> Optional
273</td> <td>
274Reject ETRN command </td> </tr>
275
276</table>
277
278</blockquote>
279
280<h2> <a name="timing"> Delayed evaluation of SMTP access restriction lists
281</a> </h2>
282
283<p> Early Postfix versions evaluated SMTP access restrictions lists
284as early as possible. The client restriction list was evaluated
285before Postfix sent the "220 $myhostname..." greeting banner to
286the SMTP client, the helo restriction list was evaluated before
287Postfix replied to the HELO (EHLO) command, the sender restriction
288list was evaluated before Postfix replied to the MAIL FROM command,
289and so on. This approach turned out to be difficult to use. </p>
290
291<p> Current Postfix versions postpone the evaluation of client,
292helo and sender restriction lists until the RCPT TO or ETRN command.
293This behavior is controlled by the smtpd_delay_reject parameter.
294Restriction lists are still evaluated in the proper order of (client,
295helo, etrn) or (client, helo, sender, relay, recipient, data, or
296end-of-data) restrictions.
297When a restriction list (example: client) evaluates to REJECT or
298DEFER the restriction lists that follow (example: helo, sender, etc.)
299are skipped.  </p>
300
301<p> Around the time that smtpd_delay_reject was introduced, Postfix
302was also changed to support mixed restriction lists that combine
303information about the client, helo, sender and recipient or etrn
304command.  </p>
305
306<p> Benefits of delayed restriction evaluation, and of restriction
307mixing: </p>
308
309<ul>
310
311<li> <p> Some SMTP clients do not expect a negative reply early in
312the SMTP session. When the bad news is postponed until the RCPT TO
313reply, the client goes away as it is supposed to, instead of hanging
314around until a timeout happens, or worse, going into an endless
315connect-reject-connect loop. </p>
316
317<li> <p> Postfix can log more useful information. For example, when
318Postfix rejects a client name or address and delays the action
319until the RCPT TO command, it can log the sender and the recipient
320address.  This is more useful than logging only the client hostname
321and IP address and not knowing whose mail was being blocked.  </p>
322
323<li> <p> Mixing is needed for complex whitelisting policies.  For
324example, in order to reject local sender addresses in mail from
325non-local clients, you need to be able to mix restrictions on client
326information with restrictions on sender information in the same
327restriction list. Without this ability, many per-user access
328restrictions would be impossible to express.  </p>
329
330</ul>
331
332<h2> <a name="danger"> Dangerous use of smtpd_recipient_restrictions </a> </h2>
333
334<p>  By now the reader may wonder why we need smtpd client, helo
335or sender restrictions, when their evaluation is postponed until
336the RCPT TO or ETRN command. Some people recommend placing ALL the
337access restrictions in the smtpd_recipient_restrictions list.
338Unfortunately, this can result in too permissive access.  How is
339this possible? </p>
340
341<p> The purpose of the smtpd_recipient_restrictions feature is to
342control how Postfix replies to the RCPT TO command. If the restriction
343list evaluates to REJECT or DEFER, the recipient address is rejected;
344no surprises here. If the result is PERMIT, then the recipient
345address is accepted. And this is where surprises can happen.  </p>
346
347<p> The problem is that Postfix versions before 2.10 did not have
348smtpd_relay_restrictions. They combined the mail relay and spam
349blocking policies, under smtpd_recipient_restrictions.  The result
350is that a permissive spam blocking policy could unexpectedly result
351in a permissive mail relay policy. </p>
352
353<p> Here is an example that shows when a PERMIT result can result
354in too much access permission: </p>
355
356<pre>
3571 /etc/postfix/main.cf:
3582     smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
3593         permit_mynetworks
3604         check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access
3615         reject_unknown_helo_hostname
3626         <b>reject_unauth_destination</b>
3637
3648 /etc/postfix/helo_access:
3659     localhost.localdomain PERMIT
366</pre>
367
368<p> Line 5 rejects mail from hosts that don't specify a proper
369hostname in the HELO command (with Postfix &lt; 2.3, specify
370reject_unknown_hostname). Lines 4 and 9 make an exception to
371allow mail from some machine that announces itself with "HELO
372localhost.localdomain".  </p>
373
374<p> The problem with this configuration is that
375smtpd_recipient_restrictions evaluates to PERMIT for EVERY host
376that announces itself as "localhost.localdomain", making Postfix
377an open relay for all such hosts. </p>
378
379<p> With Postfix before version 2.10 you should place non-recipient
380restrictions AFTER the reject_unauth_destination restriction, not
381before. In the above example, the HELO based restrictions should
382be placed AFTER reject_unauth_destination, or better, the HELO
383based restrictions should be placed under smtpd_helo_restrictions
384where they can do no harm. </p>
385
386<pre>
3871 /etc/postfix/main.cf:
3882     smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
3893         permit_mynetworks
3904         <b>reject_unauth_destination</b>
3915         check_helo_access hash:/etc/postfix/helo_access
3926         reject_unknown_helo_hostname
3937
3948 /etc/postfix/helo_access:
3959     localhost.localdomain PERMIT
396</pre>
397
398<p> The above mistake will not happen with Postfix 2.10 and later,
399when the relay policy is specified under smtpd_relay_restrictions,
400and the spam blocking policy under smtpd_recipient_restrictions.
401Then, a permissive spam blocking policy will not result in a
402permissive mail relay policy. </p>
403
404<h2> <a name="testing"> SMTP access rule testing </a> </h2>
405
406<p> Postfix has several features that aid in SMTP access rule
407testing: </p>
408
409<dl>
410
411<dt> soft_bounce </dt> <dd> <p> This is a safety net that changes
412SMTP server REJECT actions into DEFER (try again later) actions.
413This keeps mail queued that would otherwise be returned to the
414sender. Specify "soft_bounce = yes" in the main.cf file to prevent
415the Postfix SMTP server from rejecting mail permanently, by changing
416all 5xx SMTP reply codes into 4xx. </p> </dd>
417
418<dt> warn_if_reject </dt> <dd> <p> When placed before a reject-type
419restriction, access table query, or check_policy_service query,
420this logs a "reject_warning" message instead of rejecting a request
421(when a reject-type restriction fails due to a temporary error,
422this logs a "reject_warning" message for any implicit "defer_if_permit"
423actions that would normally prevent mail from being accepted by
424some later access restriction).  This feature has no effect on
425defer_if_reject restrictions.  </p> </dd>
426
427<dt> XCLIENT </dt> <dd> <p> With this feature, an authorized SMTP
428client can impersonate other systems and perform realistic SMTP
429access rule tests.  Examples of how to impersonate other systems
430for access rule testing are given at the end of the XCLIENT_README
431document. <br> This feature is available in Postfix 2.1.  </p>
432</dd>
433
434</dl>
435
436</body>
437
438</html>
439