Skip to main content

domain name system - Mailgun mails bouncing, possible DNS records are wrong?




This has probably been asked and answered before, but I'm a bit lost because I don't know what's happening and therefor don't know what to look for. I would not only like a solution of course, but I would also like to understand what's happening. I have a technical background, but in software development. Servers, DNS records, etc is a bit new to me (although I've managed).



I'm running a web application on shared hosting. I have access to a Plesk control panel (I believe 12.5). The domain name is registered at another company. And for sending mails, I'm using Mailgun (calling their API).



Now, some mails bounce (others don't), with messages like:




  • Sender address rejected: Domain not found

  • sorry, your domain does not exists.




When I use MXToolbox, an MX Lookup looks fine. But when I test the email server (with MXToolbox), I see the following messages:




  • Reverse DNS does not match SMTP Banner

  • Warning - Does not support TLS



I don't think the second is a problem (?), but the first one might be? When I do a check for SPF I see:





  • DNS Record not found



Should I fix this? (I've heard about SPF in mail contexts) This question seems to suggest I should add an SPF record, but I currently can't in Plesk 12.5.



On the other hand, Mailgun itself says everything is fine (apart from the records but as I read it, they're not important for sending mails?):
Mailgun DNS



So what's going on here? And how can I fix it, or what should I know to dig deeper?




Update



The domain this is happening on is peergroups.be



An example of headers of a mail that was received:




Delivered-To: peter.morlion@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.161.143 with SMTP id q15csp289063pjc;

Wed, 24 May 2017 04:10:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.98.93.217 with SMTP id n86mr37944933pfj.113.1495624203335;
Wed, 24 May 2017 04:10:03 -0700 (PDT)
Authentication-Results: mx.google.com;
spf=pass (google.com: domain of bounce+3c1c7e.55be3c-no-reply=peergroups.be@mg.peergroups.be designates 198.61.254.51 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bounce+3c1c7e.55be3c-no-reply=peergroups.be@mg.peergroups.be;
dkim=pass header.i=@mg.peergroups.be
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of bounce+3c1c7e.55be3c-no-reply=peergroups.be@mg.peergroups.be designates 198.61.254.51 as permitted sender) client-ip=198.61.254.51;
Received: by 10.99.134.67 with POP3 id x64mf19905540pgd.0;
Wed, 24 May 2017 04:10:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Gmail-Fetch-Info: no-reply@peergroups.be 4 peergroups.be 110 no-reply@peergroups.be

DomainKey-Status: good
Received: from so254-51.mailgun.net ([198.61.254.51]) by home with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 06:15:04 -0400
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha256; v=1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mg.peergroups.be; q=dns/txt; s=pic; t=1495620904; h=Content-Type: Mime-Version: Subject: From: To: Message-Id: Date: Sender; bh=60eeErLSy3DUfbYC4arXt0KAzdkuCC532GBme+wUcGk=; b=ky0zW94QsXQqkl8LFf+S0YI87ltc92JRKbl4sxN2HKe6ZJwsBBfIJMr5IQGg+LVBCxb0wt3b jcAVWRGFzHVXmIk/y5Ejphp1LwrkKKg62rocD6Jx4ZZFLsDiTMaXa3k108wnEhQuK4vbiEZP QUtpRzdcoaYC5AtFzoaQ9PYPU6g=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=mg.peergroups.be; s=pic; q=dns; h=Sender: Date: Message-Id: To: From: Subject: Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=O0C2WmpWCejy1cmQF1zc8spQo3zdEe7EV14Niynve2ilpUBguylHYU/muTCkD+n6saCKjK fvyjkBsvkxI6r2dA1myRBq8RQ9jZjgFxPjG6QgVSw9xObYz69QssRGrEAIZonOUMjoTzqrbd uDAM11KpxXB488y9NzH8LmzaXTAig=
Sender: no-reply=peergroups.be@mg.peergroups.be
Date: Wed, 24 May 2017 10:15:04 +0000
X-Mailgun-Sending-Ip: 198.61.254.51
X-Mailgun-Sid: WyIxMjkwYSIsICJuby1yZXBseUBwZWVyZ3JvdXBzLmJlIiwgIjU1YmUzYyJd
Received: by luna.mailgun.net with HTTP; Wed, 24 May 2017 10:15:03 +0000
Message-Id: <20170524101503.72580.5AE8265694D87481@mg.peergroups.be>

To: no-reply@peergroups.be
From: Peergroups
Subject: Some subject here
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="c9281a23246040cfb8a7081ab45d40f5"
Return-Path:


Answer



It seems I made a small mistake where I added the MX records for mailgun using the peergroups.be domain, but Mailgun was using mg.peergroups.be Adding MX records for mg.peergroups.be solved it. This also became apparent in the Mailgun dashboard, where the orange warning signs you see in the screenshot above became green checkmarks.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

linux - iDRAC6 Virtual Media native library cannot be loaded

When attempting to mount Virtual Media on a iDRAC6 IP KVM session I get the following error: I'm using Ubuntu 9.04 and: $ javaws -version Java(TM) Web Start 1.6.0_16 $ uname -a Linux aud22419-linux 2.6.28-15-generic #51-Ubuntu SMP Mon Aug 31 13:39:06 UTC 2009 x86_64 GNU/Linux $ firefox -version Mozilla Firefox 3.0.14, Copyright (c) 1998 - 2009 mozilla.org On Windows + IE it (unsurprisingly) works. I've just gotten off the phone with the Dell tech support and I was told it is known to work on Linux + Firefox, albeit Ubuntu is not supported (by Dell, that is). Has anyone out there managed to mount virtual media in the same scenario?
Post a Comment
Read more

hp proliant - Smart Array P822 with HBA Mode?

We get an HP DL360 G8 with an Smart Array P822 controller. On that controller will come a HP StorageWorks D2700 . Does anybody know, that it is possible to run the Smart Array P822 in HBA mode? I found only information about the P410i, who can run HBA. If this is not supported, what you think about the LSI 9207-8e controller? Will this fit good in that setup? The Hardware we get is used but all original from HP. The StorageWorks has 25 x 900 GB SAS 10K disks. Because the disks are not new I would like to use only 22 for raid6, and the rest for spare (I need to see if the disk count is optimal or not for zfs). It would be nice if I'm not stick to SAS in future. As OS I would like to install debian stretch with zfs 0.71 as file system and software raid. I have see that hp has an page for debian to. I would like to use hba mode because it is recommend, that zfs know at most as possible about the disk, and I'm independent from the raid controller. For us zfs have many benefits,
Post a Comment
Read more

apache 2.2 - Server Potentially Compromised -- c99madshell

So, low and behold, a legacy site we've been hosting for a client had a version of FCKEditor that allowed someone to upload the dreaded c99madshell exploit onto our web host. I'm not a big security buff -- frankly I'm just a dev currently responsible for S/A duties due to a loss of personnel. Accordingly, I'd love any help you server-faulters could provide in assessing the damage from the exploit. To give you a bit of information: The file was uploaded into a directory within the webroot, "/_img/fck_uploads/File/". The Apache user and group are restricted such that they can't log in and don't have permissions outside of the directory from which we serve sites. All the files had 770 permissions (user rwx, group rwx, other none) -- something I wanted to fix but was told to hold off on as it wasn't "high priority" (hopefully this changes that). So it seems the hackers could've easily executed the script. Now I wasn't able
Post a Comment
Read more