warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

Alain Spineux-2
Hi

I made my own accesses restrictions using this :

smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist_policy, reject_rbl

But I got this warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument
unfortunately "reject_rbl" looks to be an "undocumented" postfix restriction!
It looks to be an alias for reject_rbl_client !

Even if "reject_rbl" is not found in the documentation, I found it in
the sources :-)

Hope this help someone else.

--
Alain Spineux
aspineux gmail com
May the sources be with you
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

Wietse Venema
Alain Spineux:
> Hi
>
> I made my own accesses restrictions using this :
>
> smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist_policy, reject_rbl
>
> But I got this warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument
> unfortunately "reject_rbl" looks to be an "undocumented" postfix restriction!
> It looks to be an alias for reject_rbl_client !

It's not document SO DO NOT USE IT.

        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

mouss-2
Wietse Venema wrote:

> Alain Spineux:
>  
>> Hi
>>
>> I made my own accesses restrictions using this :
>>
>> smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist_policy, reject_rbl
>>
>> But I got this warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument
>> unfortunately "reject_rbl" looks to be an "undocumented" postfix restriction!
>> It looks to be an alias for reject_rbl_client !
>>    
>
> It's not document SO DO NOT USE IT.
>  

how so? if it's not documented, then it is not reserved, and it should
be possible to use it as a custom variable, including as the name of a
restriction class.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

Wietse Venema
mouss:

> Wietse Venema wrote:
> > Alain Spineux:
> >  
> >> Hi
> >>
> >> I made my own accesses restrictions using this :
> >>
> >> smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist_policy, reject_rbl
> >>
> >> But I got this warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument
> >> unfortunately "reject_rbl" looks to be an "undocumented" postfix restriction!
> >> It looks to be an alias for reject_rbl_client !
> >>    
> >
> > It's not document SO DO NOT USE IT.
> >  
>
> how so? if it's not documented, then it is not reserved, and it should
> be possible to use it as a custom variable, including as the name of a
> restriction class.

Undocumented behavior ilie this exists only for backwards compatibility,
and it be removed at any time. In this case, reject_rbl was introduced
during a snapshot release, but had to be replaced by reject_rbl_client
because Postfix needed to support RBL features.

        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

mouss-2
Wietse Venema wrote:

> mouss:
>  
>> Wietse Venema wrote:
>>    
>>> Alain Spineux:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> I made my own accesses restrictions using this :
>>>>
>>>> smtpd_restriction_classes = greylist_policy, reject_rbl
>>>>
>>>> But I got this warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument
>>>> unfortunately "reject_rbl" looks to be an "undocumented" postfix restriction!
>>>> It looks to be an alias for reject_rbl_client !
>>>>    
>>>>        
>>> It's not document SO DO NOT USE IT.
>>>  
>>>      
>> how so? if it's not documented, then it is not reserved, and it should
>> be possible to use it as a custom variable, including as the name of a
>> restriction class.
>>    
>
> Undocumented behavior ilie this exists only for backwards compatibility,
> and it be removed at any time. In this case, reject_rbl was introduced
> during a snapshot release, but had to be replaced by reject_rbl_client
> because Postfix needed to support RBL features.
>  


I understand that. OP problem is that he is using an undocumented yet
reserved keyword. he can use undocumented names as keywords, as long as
they are not reserved.

That said, OP is looking for trouble. even if the keyword was not
reserved, he should avoid names that might be reserved (for example in
future versions). and this brings us to this:

how about having a prefix that is guaranteed to never be "reserved" by
postfix. I mean if I create an reject_foo_bar class, I wouldn't like
this to be a standard restriction in a future postfix version (I
actually avoid any reject_ and permit_, and mostly use a policy_mumble
convention).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

Wietse Venema
mouss:
> I understand that. OP problem is that he is using an undocumented yet
> reserved keyword. he can use undocumented names as keywords, as long as
> they are not reserved.

Restriction class names override built-in names, so the implementation
is forwards compatible. If he uses a restriction class name that
is identical to a built-in feature, he just can't use that built-in
feature.

        Wietse
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: warning: restriction reject_rbl requires domain name argument

Wietse Venema
Wietse Venema:
> mouss:
> > I understand that. OP problem is that he is using an undocumented yet
> > reserved keyword. he can use undocumented names as keywords, as long as
> > they are not reserved.
>
> Restriction class names override built-in names, so the implementation
> is forwards compatible. If he uses a restriction class name that
> is identical to a built-in feature, he just can't use that built-in
> feature.

This is incorrect. Built-in names take precedence over restriction
class names. So the undocumented features do get in the way, as do
newly added features with names that people already use for something.

        Wietse