DevHeads.net

check_recipient_a_access DISCARD leads to 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error

Hello,

as described in the subject i tried to implement the new feature
check_recipient_a_access
I have encountered a strange error or maybe an bug.

The following settings result in an correct action follwed by an "4.3.5
Server configuration error" response.
# main.cf
smtpd_recipient_restrictions =
        reject_non_fqdn_sender
        ...
        check_recipient_a_access
hash:/etc/postfix/lookup/recipient_a_access
        ...
        permit

# cat /etc/postfix/lookup/recipient_a_access
185.140.110.3 DISCARD

# maillog
Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: NOQUEUE: discard: RCPT
from unknown[192.168.xxx.xxx]:53698:
< ... at netgooya dot com>: Recipient address triggers
DISCARD action; from=<> to=< ... at netgooya dot com>
proto=ESMTP helo=<bsmtp.xxx.xx>
Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: warning: restriction
check_recipient_a_access returns OK for <a href="mailto: ... at netgooya dot com"> ... at netgooya dot com</a>
Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: warning: this is not
allowed for security reasons
Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: warning: use DUNNO instead
of OK if you want to make an exception
Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/smtpd[7187]: NOQUEUE: reject: RCPT from
unknown[192.168.xxx.xxx]:53698: 451 4.3.5 Server configuration error;
from=<> to=< ... at netgooya dot com> proto=ESMTP
helo=<bsmtp.xxx.xx>
Nov 14 10:53:54 fallback postfix/cleanup[7844]: 3ybjWk29Jhz5vXS:
message-id=< ... at smtp dot xxx.xx>

If DISCARD is replaced by HOLD in "recipient_a_access" the error won't
appear but in fact the sending host also receives an OK message like it
does above when discarding the mail, which should not be allowed if you
trust the warning message received.

So is this a bug when using DISCARD or is it the right behaviour?
And if it's not a bug then i think HOLD is buggy because it does not
respond with an "451 4.3.5 Server configuration error".

Where can i file a bug report?
Or can someone confirm this behaviour?

Thanks in advance,
Patrick