Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 20:35:51 +0100 From: Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org> To: Juraj Lutter <otis@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freeBSD ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: postfix' blacklistd patch Message-ID: <35D455CD-B5CD-4950-8244-7131F59B2337@ellael.org> In-Reply-To: <40BAFF53-D547-4059-AE88-E5E8A5F0EF2B@FreeBSD.org> References: <4EC5136F-0692-460C-85B8-BA3BF5FA728E@ellael.org> <40BAFF53-D547-4059-AE88-E5E8A5F0EF2B@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Juraj Lutter <otis@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> On 16 Jan 2023, at 16:49, Michael Grimm <trashcan@ellael.org> wrote: >> I wonder if the following condition for triggering blacklistd is = appropriate: >>=20 >>=20 >> /* notify blacklistd of SASL authentication failure */ >> pfilter_notify(1, vstream_fileno(state->client)); >> return (-1); >> } >>=20 >> If I am not mistaken blacklistd will become notified even after a = 'Temporary authentication failure'.=20 >>=20 >> Has this been intended? >=20 >=20 > Yes, because even an temporary failure could be a result of a =E2=80=9Cb= rute force attack=E2=80=9D. Thanks for the clarification and regards, Michael=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35D455CD-B5CD-4950-8244-7131F59B2337>