REGISTER MX VPS

[consultoriasetsecapp]

Hello guys, please I need help.
I have a website that has its DNS records hosted on HOSTINGER, I added an ``A´´ record so that everything that arrives is redirected to my VPS. However, I am having 1 problem with HmailServer:
- When running the diagnosis, the following log is displayed below


Register DNS Hostinger
Type Name Prio From TTL
CNAME autodiscover 0 autodiscover.mail.hostinger.com 300
A mail 0 206.221.xxx.xxx (myvps) 14400
A @ 0 206.221.xxx.xxx (myvps) 14400
AAAA @ 0 2a02:4780:1:537:0:c4f:df53:2 14400
CNAME autoconfig 0 autoconfig.mail.hostinger.com 300
TXT @ 0 "v=spf1 mx a ptr -all" 14400


HMAILSERVER Test: Collect server details
hMailServer version: hMailServer 5.6.8-B2574
Database type: MSSQL Compact

Test: Test IPv6
IPv6 support is available in operating system.

Test: Test outbound port
SMTP relayer not in use. Attempting mail.hmailserver.com:25...
Local address is 206.221.176.188.
Trying to connect to host mail.hmailserver.com...
Trying to connect to TCP/IP address 185.216.75.37 on port 25.
Received: 220 mail.hmailserver.com ESMTP.
Connected successfully.

Test: Test backup directory
Backup directory C:\xxx\xxxx\BACKUP is writable.

Test: Test MX records
Trying to resolve MX records for namemydomain.com.br...
ERROR: MX records for domain namemydomain.com.br could not be resolved

Test: Test local connect
Connecting to TCP/IP address in MX records for local domain domain avisointerno.com.br...
ERROR: MX records for local domain namemydomain.com.br could not be resolved

Test: Test message file locations
Relative message paths are stored in the database for all messages.

Test: Test IP range configuration
No problems were found in the IP range configuration.

[palinka]

Register DNS Hostinger
Type Name Prio From TTL
CNAME autodiscover 0 autodiscover.mail.hostinger.com 300
A mail 0 206.221.xxx.xxx (myvps) 14400
A @ 0 206.221.xxx.xxx (myvps) 14400
AAAA @ 0 2a02:4780:1:537:0:c4f:df53:2 14400
CNAME autoconfig 0 autoconfig.mail.hostinger.com 300
TXT @ 0 "v=spf1 mx a ptr -all" 14400

I don't see an MX record in this list. You should add MX that points to mail.yourdomain.br.

[johang]

hmmm ( my instincts want me to tell you that is not how it works.. )

but then again..
If you want the diagnostic test to work which relys upon there being an MX record in your domain.. you better add an mx record as Palinka tells you in post above..

however you can always "direct address" a user on a host on the internet smtp wise if there is an A record pointed to the host..
( just as myuser@206.221.xxx.xxx will work )

have you tried emailing to a user on your hmailserver ?
( i still recommend you to set up an mx record https://support.hostinger.com/en/articl ... mx-records )

[SorenR]

You don't need MX records, they make stuff easier if you have multiple servers/relays but you don't really need them for a single server!

Now this:

home.arpa MX 10 mx.home.arpa
home.arpa MX 20 mail.home.arpa (mail relay/backupmx for mx.home.arpa/1.2.3.4)
mx.home.arpa A 1.2.3.4
mail.home.arpa A 2.3.4.5

will give me the same mailbox on these domains:

john.doe@home.arpa <-- MX record
john.doe@mx.home.arpa <-- A record
john.doe@mail.home.arpa <-- A record
john.doe@[1.2.3.4]
john.doe@[1.2.3.4]

You will need to have "mx.home.arpa", "mail.home.arpa", "[1.2.3.4]" and "[1.2.3.4]" defined as domain aliases for "home.arpa" in hMailServer...

Go to domain definition and select "names" tab to enter aliases for that domain.

[palinka]

You don't need MX records, they make stuff easier if you have multiple servers/relays but you don't really need them for a single server!

Now this:

home.arpa MX 10 mx.home.arpa
home.arpa MX 20 mail.home.arpa (mail relay/backupmx for mx.home.arpa/1.2.3.4)
mx.home.arpa A 1.2.3.4
mail.home.arpa A 2.3.4.5

will give me the same mailbox on these domains:

john.doe@home.arpa <-- MX record
john.doe@mx.home.arpa <-- A record
john.doe@mail.home.arpa <-- A record
john.doe@[1.2.3.4]
john.doe@[1.2.3.4]

You will need to have "mx.home.arpa", "mail.home.arpa", "[1.2.3.4]" and "[1.2.3.4]" defined as domain aliases for "home.arpa" in hMailServer...

Go to domain definition and select "names" tab to enter aliases for that domain.

You need MX records if you want to receive mail from the outside world. OP never said he didn't want to receive mail. Stop confusing him.

[johang]

You need MX records if you want to receive mail from the outside world. OP never said he didn't want to receive mail. Stop confusing him.

nope you dont need MX records to recieve emails from the outside world..

already at the beginning of internet when most systems were multi user computers/servers it was well known you could send emails from 1 host to another. The MX record exists to specify mail servers responsibility for accepting email mesasges on behalf of other domains than the FQDN of the accepting host....

you could easily test it yourself... in your hmailserver, in domains add any domain with a FQDN of your external IP ( for kickers.. use your ISP hostname for your connection.. lets say its tbcn-600-1.2.3.4.telia.com ) you now are being able to accept email in the form my.user@tbcn-600-1.2.3.4.telia.com.

for anyone running a mailserver with an A record pointing to the server , they will be able to accept email "ON" that A record ( if of course configured inside the mail server )... so everyone that has an a record for "mail.mydomain.com" will be able to recieve emails in the format myuser@mail.mydomain.com ( as long as you have added that domain into your email server ).

which makes.. IF you put an A record of mydomain.com to your server .. you can accept email in the format myuser@mydomain.com ( and without an MX record ) and of course as always configure your email server to accept emails for "that domain"



i still agree that the OP should set up an MX record for his/her domain...

[palinka]

You need MX records if you want to receive mail from the outside world. OP never said he didn't want to receive mail. Stop confusing him.

nope you dont need MX records to recieve emails from the outside world..

already at the beginning of internet when most systems were multi user computers/servers it was well known you could send emails from 1 host to another. The MX record exists to specify mail servers responsibility for accepting email mesasges on behalf of other domains than the FQDN of the accepting host....

you could easily test it yourself... in your hmailserver, in domains add any domain with a FQDN of your external IP ( for kickers.. use your ISP hostname for your connection.. lets say its tbcn-600-1.2.3.4.telia.com ) you now are being able to accept email in the form my.user@tbcn-600-1.2.3.4.telia.com.

for anyone running a mailserver with an A record pointing to the server , they will be able to accept email "ON" that A record ( if of course configured inside the mail server )... so everyone that has an a record for "mail.mydomain.com" will be able to recieve emails in the format myuser@mail.mydomain.com ( as long as you have added that domain into your email server ).

which makes.. IF you put an A record of mydomain.com to your server .. you can accept email in the format myuser@mydomain.com ( and without an MX record ) and of course as always configure your email server to accept emails for "that domain"



i still agree that the OP should set up an MX record for his/her domain...

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's not how 99.99999999999999% of email users send messages. They send messages to domains that are not a mail server PTR, IP or A record, which require mx records in order to correctly route the message.

So, yes, you can sperg about what is possible, but for users like the OP asking very basic knowledge questions, let's try to keep things in the realm of what is practical.

[johang]

So, yes, you can sperg about what is possible,

ohh a bit diminishing and patronizing today are we good way to deflect when in the wrong..
(you know its not only "possible" right.. its RFCed... )

but for users like the OP asking very basic knowledge questions, let's try to keep things in the realm of what is practical.

i'll leave a check in the box for the future ... only write in the realm of what is practical when OP ask very basic knowledge questions do not provide any knowledgde in close connection to the question... cheers

[Bob.Dig]

nope you dont need MX records to recieve emails from the outside world..

Appreciated the reminder!

[SorenR]

You need MX records if you want to receive mail from the outside world. OP never said he didn't want to receive mail. Stop confusing him.

nope you dont need MX records to recieve emails from the outside world..

+1

[SorenR]

So, yes, you can sperg about what is possible, but for users like the OP asking very basic knowledge questions, let's try to keep things in the realm of what is practical.

This IS basic knowledge

I have been dealing with this shit for 30 years professionally, I should know!

[palinka]

So, yes, you can sperg about what is possible, but for users like the OP asking very basic knowledge questions, let's try to keep things in the realm of what is practical.

This IS basic knowledge

I have been dealing with this shit for 30 years professionally, I should know!

Are you using soren@126.34.109.242 as your professional work email address? Would you expect your clients to use their ISP given PTR instead of a domain? This is a stupid discussion.

Everyone (here) knows it's possible. Nobody actually does it. Kind of like wrestling alligators.

Actually if my ip were 69.69.69.69 then i might consider using that instead of a domain.

[SorenR]

So, yes, you can sperg about what is possible, but for users like the OP asking very basic knowledge questions, let's try to keep things in the realm of what is practical.

This IS basic knowledge

I have been dealing with this shit for 30 years professionally, I should know!

Are you using soren@126.34.109.242 as your professional work email address? Would you expect your clients to use their ISP given PTR instead of a domain? This is a stupid discussion.

Everyone (here) knows it's possible. Nobody actually does it. Kind of like wrestling alligators.

Actually if my ip were 69.69.69.69 then i might consider using that instead of a domain.

IP address needs to be in brackets [] and it's a way to send emails without involving DNS servers

[johang]

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's not how 99.99999999999999% of email users send messages. They send messages to domains that are not a mail server PTR, IP or A record, which require mx records in order to correctly route the message.

its just that.. it does not work that way... users sends email to an emailaddress.. not a domain.. users dont care and they do not need to care how the resolving of an emailaddress works.. all that is taken care of by mail servers functioning to the aspects of an RFC.. and the RFC states if there are no MX records then the standard is fallback to an A pointer for the domain ( the MX record itself rely upon there being an A record to actually resolv to an IP and use IT to route SMTP traffic to.... )

Stating that it is required to have an MX record in order to correctly route an email is simply not the truth.
( i still consider it better for OP to use an MX pointer )

Would you expect your clients to use their ISP given PTR instead of a domain? This is a stupid discussion.

since i was the one bringing up testing with the hostname of your ISP for kickers.. i'll jump in on it...
so.. i was giving an example of how to easy test how the implementation of the RFC works without having to mess with your own domain, dont know how to be more clear then that about it.. however i dont know what is worse.. you not understanding the concept. or you wanting to misinterpret so badly to get a "win"

to throw everything around playing all righteous to get a win just to not lose face.. now thats stupid..

Everyone (here) knows it's possible. Nobody actually does it.

google tells me that there is an entire world outside this forum.. and it seems theres quite a bunch that also have understood the RFC..
i use it all the time for accepting email on sub/domains that i do not want to advertise via MX ( very good way of not being visible to bots going for MX records ) yeah i know, your view is that if i do it.. it doesnt count..

Nobody actually does it. Kind of like wrestling alligators.

this is getting so awkward .. is that perhaps a saying among your friends or common reference in your society when something is absurd to you ?
i mean..https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wrestling+alligators&l=1 to me it seems pretty real...
you not being able to do it (or it is absurd to you) suddenly makes you an expert and denounce the existence of it...
why are you exxaggerating at that level ??? do you need the "win" that bad ?

here I'll give it to you... you won! it is absurd wrestling alligators (albeit real)

although im reconsidering my check in the box of only pertaining to basic knowledge around questions from forum posters since you brought alligators into the eqvation..

[palinka]

Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's not how 99.99999999999999% of email users send messages. They send messages to domains that are not a mail server PTR, IP or A record, which require mx records in order to correctly route the message.

its just that.. it does not work that way... users sends email to an emailaddress.. not a domain.. users dont care and they do not need to care how the resolving of an emailaddress works.. all that is taken care of by mail servers functioning to the aspects of an RFC.. and the RFC states if there are no MX records then the standard is fallback to an A pointer for the domain ( the MX record itself rely upon there being an A record to actually resolv to an IP and use IT to route SMTP traffic to.... )

Stating that it is required to have an MX record in order to correctly route an email is simply not the truth.
( i still consider it better for OP to use an MX pointer )

Would you expect your clients to use their ISP given PTR instead of a domain? This is a stupid discussion.

since i was the one bringing up testing with the hostname of your ISP for kickers.. i'll jump in on it...
so.. i was giving an example of how to easy test how the implementation of the RFC works without having to mess with your own domain, dont know how to be more clear then that about it.. however i dont know what is worse.. you not understanding the concept. or you wanting to misinterpret so badly to get a "win"

to throw everything around playing all righteous to get a win just to not lose face.. now thats stupid..

Everyone (here) knows it's possible. Nobody actually does it.

google tells me that there is an entire world outside this forum.. and it seems theres quite a bunch that also have understood the RFC..
i use it all the time for accepting email on sub/domains that i do not want to advertise via MX ( very good way of not being visible to bots going for MX records ) yeah i know, your view is that if i do it.. it doesnt count..

Nobody actually does it. Kind of like wrestling alligators.

this is getting so awkward .. is that perhaps a saying among your friends or common reference in your society when something is absurd to you ?
i mean..https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wrestling+alligators&l=1 to me it seems pretty real...
you not being able to do it (or it is absurd to you) suddenly makes you an expert and denounce the existence of it...
why are you exxaggerating at that level ??? do you need the "win" that bad ?

here I'll give it to you... you won! it is absurd wrestling alligators (albeit real)

You're totally insane. Stop sperging. I'm not even reading that wall of text. None of this changes the fact that 99.99999999999% of email is addressed to a domain using MX records and not bracketed IP address, PTR, etc..

OP had a question about his internal diagnostics. The obvious answer was and is set up MX records and he won't have that error any more. Is that deniable? Even by spergs like you?

Is the non-MX email address in the room with us now?

[johang]

Is the non-MX email address in the room with us now?

i think you scared him away with all the exxagerations .. and the threat of an alligator..

[palinka]

Is the non-MX email address in the room with us now?

i think you scared him away with all the exxagerations .. and the threat of an alligator..

That was my whole point from the beginning. Don't overwhelm new users with unrelated, unnecessary, spergy information that will steer him down the wrong path or scare him away.

What part of "stop confusing him" is so hard to understand?

[johang]

That was my whole point from the beginning. Don't overwhelm new users with unrelated, unnecessary, spergy information that will steer him down the wrong path or scare him away.

What part of "stop confusing him" is so hard to understand?

why assume OP is an idiot not worthy of being trusted with the treasure of knowledge?

noted is that RFCs trumps what any of us writes in this forum, known/remembered or unknown/forgotten.
And in the case of RFCs deciding why not just let us try to stick with the facts of them...

[Bob.Dig]

Right now I want to make a domain accessible from the inside of my multi-site network only by private IPs. And I want to do it with the least amount of work/complexity.
So this reminder was at the right time, that I don't have to create (local) mx records.

[SorenR]

Right now I want to make a domain accessible from the inside of my multi-site network only by private IPs. And I want to do it with the least amount of work/complexity.
So this reminder was at the right time, that I don't have to create (local) mx records.

HOSTS file, local (caching) DNS or route.

I have (two) local caching DNS where I can add "private" domains en masse. But yes, I could just add domains to the HOSTS file when testing between development server, backup server and primary server - but I'm old school so I do PTR, A, MX, SPF, TXT and DMARC records on my local DNS server(s) just to remind me how to do it ... and my OCD light feels better that way

[johang]

So this reminder was at the right time