ciacho Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Hi, I'm trying to add a new MailHost, but I get errors "No MX records found." MX records exist for the domain: # Host-t mx ciacho.pl ciacho.pl mail is handled by 20 mx2.witrynka.pl. ciacho.pl mail is handled by 10 smtp.ciacho.pl. # Host-t mx ciacho.art.pl ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 10 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 30 aspmx2.googlemail.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 50 aspmx3.googlemail.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 1 aspmx.l.google.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Please send me your login username (email address), and the email address you're trying to register, and I will try to help you. Email the information to me directly at: service[at]admin.spamcop.net - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - - service[at]admin.spamcop.net - . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 I'm trying to add a new MailHost, but I get errors "No MX records found." MX records exist for the domain: # Host-t mx ciacho.pl ciacho.pl mail is handled by 20 mx2.witrynka.pl. ciacho.pl mail is handled by 10 smtp.ciacho.pl. # Host-t mx ciacho.art.pl ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 5 alt1.aspmx.l.google.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 10 alt2.aspmx.l.google.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 30 aspmx2.googlemail.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 50 aspmx3.googlemail.com. ciacho.art.pl mail is handled by 1 aspmx.l.google.com. Possible future FAQ data; ciacho.pl NS (Nameserver) ns2.witrynka.pl ciacho.pl NS (Nameserver) ns3.witrynka.pl ciacho.pl NS (Nameserver) ns1.witrynka.pl ciacho.pl MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 20 mx2.witrynka.pl ciacho.pl MX (Mail Exchanger) Priority: 10 smtp.ciacho.pl ciacho.pl TXT (Text Field) v=spf1 ip4:81.219.144.116 ip4:81.219.144.117 ip4:195.136.196.253 ip4:193.239.39.221 ip4:193.239.39.222 a -all ciacho.pl A (Address) 89.250.207.94 ns1.witrynka.pl A (Address) 193.239.39.221 ns2.witrynka.pl A (Address) 83.175.181.6 ns3.witrynka.pl A (Address) 83.243.107.25 smtp.ciacho.pl A (Address) 193.239.39.221 mx2.witrynka.pl A (Address) 193.239.39.222 Dig ciacho.pl[at]ns3.witrynka.pl (83.243.107.25) ... failed, couldn't connect to nameserver Dig ciacho.pl[at]ns2.witrynka.pl (83.175.181.6) ... Authoritative Answer Query for ciacho.pl type=255 class=1 ciacho.pl SOA (Zone of Authority) .... Point being that the MailHost Configuration code may include a scan for the text string highlighted in red above and once seen, drops out. I don't recall seeing this issue being brought up 'here' before. Also noting that this same 'problem' doesn't appear in the second Domain listed, primarily because it doesn't have the ns3 server in the data record/file. Feedback on just what the actual issue turns out to be sure would be nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciacho Posted April 21, 2010 Author Share Posted April 21, 2010 Possible future FAQ data; Dig ciacho.pl[at]ns3.witrynka.pl (83.243.107.25) ... failed, couldn't connect to nameserver Dig ciacho.pl[at]ns2.witrynka.pl (83.175.181.6) ... Authoritative Answer Query for ciacho.pl type=255 class=1 ciacho.pl SOA (Zone of Authority) .... Fixed configuration (removed ns3.witrynka.pl NS record), but the problem still occurs. For example, I have a similar problem for the domain and there ciacho.pl NS records are accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Feedback on just what the actual issue turns out to be sure would be nice.Unfortunately, I don't have anything for you. I tried and tried, but SpamCop never did find an MX for the domain. I didn't have any trouble finding an MX with my personal tools. All very strange. I developed enough information about the hosts that I was able to create registrations and put them on his account, so the user is good to go, but the MX mystery remains. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wazoo Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Unfortunately, I don't have anything for you. I developed enough information about the hosts that I was able to create registrations and put them on his account, so the user is good to go, but the MX mystery remains. Thanks. As far as the Topic/query goes, tagged as Resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpamCopAdmin Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 Further investigation indicates that here is something wrong with SpamCop's MX lookup routine. More later. - Don D'Minion - SpamCop Admin - . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 ...I tried and tried, but SpamCop never did find an MX for the domain. I didn't have any trouble finding an MX with my personal tools. All very strange. ...Can anyone confirm the DNS records are good? The 1 sec TTL seems strange to me. Not affecting anything here but what is that SPF record about? (The first 3 IP addresses?). All magic to me I'm afraid, just asking ... http://centralops.net/co/DomainDossier.aspx -> Address lookup canonical name ciacho.pl. aliases addresses 89.250.207.94 DNS records name class type data [/tcol] time to live ciacho.pl IN SOA server: ns1.witrynka.pl 1s (00:00:01) email: admin.mnie.pl serial: 2010042102 refresh: 28800 retry: 7200 expire: 604800 minimum ttl: 86400 ciacho.pl IN A 89.250.207.94 1s (00:00:01) ciacho.pl IN TXT v=spf1 ip4:81.219.144.116 ip4:81.219.144.117 ip4:195.136.196.253 ip4:193.239.39.221 1s (00:00:01) ip4:193.239.39.222 a -all ciacho.pl IN MX preference: 20 1s (00:00:01) exchange: mx2.witrynka.pl ciacho.pl IN MX preference: 10 1s (00:00:01) exchange: smtp.ciacho.pl ciacho.pl IN NS ns2.witrynka.pl 1s (00:00:01) ciacho.pl IN NS ns1.witrynka.pl 1s (00:00:01) 94.207.250.89.in-addr.arpa IN PTR ekkimu.witrynka.pl [tcol]3600s (01:00:00) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rconner Posted April 21, 2010 Share Posted April 21, 2010 The 1 sec TTL seems strange to me. Not affecting anything here but what is that SPF record about? (The first 3 IP addresses?). I get the same as you. The TTL makes it look pretty odd indeed; these lookups would effectively never be cached. The two MX hosts are also on the list for SPF, which seems reasonable for a small operation. The other three addresses show up in Poland, also to be expected here. The SPF (TXT) record seems to say "allow any of these five hosts (but no others) to deliver mail claiming to be from ciacho.com" -- rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farelf Posted April 22, 2010 Share Posted April 22, 2010 ...The TTL makes it look pretty odd indeed; these lookups would effectively never be cached. The two MX hosts are also on the list for SPF, which seems reasonable for a small operation. The other three addresses show up in Poland, also to be expected here. The SPF (TXT) record seems to say "allow any of these five hosts (but no others) to deliver mail claiming to be from ciacho.com"Thanks Rick, I struggle with that stuff. I can't help feeling there would not have to be much wrong with the SC MX lookup routine for it to struggle with uncached entries. I don't specifically understand the Telnet-net and Inetia.pl servers being in the SPF record, but they must be part of the routing I guess, or they wouldn't be there. That may also be part of SC's difficulty though it seems Don may have been alerted to some other difficulty. I'm faintly amazed that the internet works at all. Maybe I'm imagining it all. Are you other guys really there? Can you prove it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.