Re: [2] Sender domain must have a DNS MX
Hi Ron and Dan I have the same issues. Have you resolved this problem? If you did, and have a solutions, could you please help me out with it? Thank you in advance more detail below. JT X-Message-Info: LsUYwwHHNt3660MmjhEvYg2f34OAemlKwfim1hp8BGs= Received: from bay0-omc3-s19.bay0.hotmail.com ([65.54.246.219]) by bay0-imc1-s33.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2444); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:57:11 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:57:10 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status; boundary="9B095B5ADSN=_01C7313F958203D8005941F8bay0?omc3?s19.ba" X-DSNContext: 7ce717b1 - 1196 - 0002 - Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure) Return-Path: <> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2007 12:57:11.0101 (UTC) FILETIME=[79C096D0:01C74F6E] This is a MIME-formatted message. Portions of this message may be unreadable without a MIME-capable mail program. --9B095B5ADSN=_01C7313F958203D8005941F8bay0?omc3?s19.ba Content-Type: text/plain; charset=unicode-1-1-utf-7 This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification. Delivery to the following recipients failed. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --9B095B5ADSN=_01C7313F958203D8005941F8bay0?omc3?s19.ba Content-Type: message/delivery-status Reporting-MTA: dns;bay0-omc3-s19.bay0.hotmail.com Received-From-MTA: dns;hotmail.com Arrival-Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:56:28 -0800 Final-Recipient: rfc822;[EMAIL PROTECTED] Action: failed Status: 5.2.1 Diagnostic-Code: smtp;550 5.2.1 Mailbox unavailable. Sender domain must have a DNS MX or A/CNAME record. --9B095B5ADSN=_01C7313F958203D8005941F8bay0?omc3?s19.ba Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from hotmail.com ([64.4.19.86]) by bay0-omc3-s19.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2668); Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:56:28 -0800 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 04:56:28 -0800 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from 12.170.158.5 by BAY109-DAV14.phx.gbl with DAV; Tue, 13 Feb 2007 12:56:25 + X-Originating-IP: [12.170.158.5] X-Originating-Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: "Joe Tran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: test from hotmail 7:58 Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:58:38 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_NextPart_000_0041_01C74F44.C51E5BA0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2007 12:56:28.0590 (UTC) FILETIME=[6069ECE0:01C74F6E] Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --=_NextPart_000_0041_01C74F44.C51E5BA0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0041_01C74F44.C51E5BA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --=_NextPart_000_0041_01C74F44.C51E5BA0-- --9B095B5ADSN=_01C7313F958203D8005941F8bay0?omc3?s19.ba-- Ron-45 wrote: > > I am getting the following as a bounced message when I send mail to > this one person: > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host tane-uma.de[81.169.136.73] said: 550 5.2.1 > Mailbox unavailable. Sender domain must have a DNS MX or A/CNAME > record. > (in reply to RCPT TO command) > > I have never seen anything like this for any other email I send from > the same server, and I am wondering if it is something I have set up > wrong, or a problem on their end. I assume this is a spam prevention > technique. > > I run several (virtual) domains off my one server, so if they are > doing a reverse DNS lookup, it is not going to return the correct > domain, but I know a lot of servers do this as well.If this is > indeed what they are doing, how can you set up a sever that hosts > several domains off a single IP address to not fail this spam test? > > The other thing that might be complicating this is that server1.net > (1.2.3.1) hosts email for email1.net and email2.net. But, when I send > email for [EMAIL PROTECTED], server2.net (1.2.3.2) is the outgoing server. > I do this so I can just manage one severs that is relaying mail from > client apps (thunderbird). I don't think this is that abnormal, if > not, how do I make it work correctly for this kind of spam detection? > > Or is the receiving server just broken? > > I apologize that this isn't a 100% spamassassin related question. > > Ron > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Sender-domain-must-have-a-DNS-MX-tf3171099.html#a8944622 Sent from the SpamAssassin - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: Sender domain must have a DNS MX
Not enough information. You show the recieving email server, but don't say
anything about the sender. 1.2.3.1 is not valid, but we'd need the domain
name anyhow. I'm assuming gmail.com is not it.
No, the reverse IP name doesn't have to match the MX server name, but it
does have to result in a name with an A record of the same IP. It looks like
maybe they are complaining about the sender address being unreachable, but
without the sender address, it's hard to research.
No, that is normal for multiple domains on the same IP. I don't think the
reciever is broken, either. At least, I don't have enough info to say yet.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: Ron [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 3:01 PM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: Sender domain must have a DNS MX
I am getting the following as a bounced message when I send mail to
this one person:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host tane-uma.de[81.169.136.73] said: 550 5.2.1
Mailbox unavailable. Sender domain must have a DNS MX or A/CNAME record.
(in reply to RCPT TO command)
I have never seen anything like this for any other email I send from
the same server, and I am wondering if it is something I have set up
wrong, or a problem on their end. I assume this is a spam prevention
technique.
I run several (virtual) domains off my one server, so if they are
doing a reverse DNS lookup, it is not going to return the correct
domain, but I know a lot of servers do this as well.If this is
indeed what they are doing, how can you set up a sever that hosts
several domains off a single IP address to not fail this spam test?
The other thing that might be complicating this is that server1.net
(1.2.3.1) hosts email for email1.net and email2.net. But, when I send
email for [EMAIL PROTECTED], server2.net (1.2.3.2) is the outgoing server.
I do this so I can just manage one severs that is relaying mail from
client apps (thunderbird). I don't think this is that abnormal, if
not, how do I make it work correctly for this kind of spam detection?
Or is the receiving server just broken?
I apologize that this isn't a 100% spamassassin related question.
Ron
Sender domain must have a DNS MX
I am getting the following as a bounced message when I send mail to this one person: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: host tane-uma.de[81.169.136.73] said: 550 5.2.1 Mailbox unavailable. Sender domain must have a DNS MX or A/CNAME record. (in reply to RCPT TO command) I have never seen anything like this for any other email I send from the same server, and I am wondering if it is something I have set up wrong, or a problem on their end. I assume this is a spam prevention technique. I run several (virtual) domains off my one server, so if they are doing a reverse DNS lookup, it is not going to return the correct domain, but I know a lot of servers do this as well.If this is indeed what they are doing, how can you set up a sever that hosts several domains off a single IP address to not fail this spam test? The other thing that might be complicating this is that server1.net (1.2.3.1) hosts email for email1.net and email2.net. But, when I send email for [EMAIL PROTECTED], server2.net (1.2.3.2) is the outgoing server. I do this so I can just manage one severs that is relaying mail from client apps (thunderbird). I don't think this is that abnormal, if not, how do I make it work correctly for this kind of spam detection? Or is the receiving server just broken? I apologize that this isn't a 100% spamassassin related question. Ron
