Score:0

Gmail not detecting PTR record from vultr server

vn flag

I have an SMTP server running on a vultr VM. I've set up the rDNS to point to my mail domain name mail.idimitrov.dev. The DNS setup points to that machine on ipv4 and ipv6 for mail.idimitrov.dev and it points to github pages on idimitrov.dev.

When I send emails to gmail only, it tells me that there are no PTR records.

                   |    host gmail-smtp-in.l.google.com [2a00:1450:4013:c07::1b]
                   |    SMTP error from remote mail server after pipelined end of data:
                   |    550-5.7.25 [2001:19f0:6c01:2f25:399c:6832:fa7c:c123] The IP address sending this
                   |    550-5.7.25 message does not have a PTR record setup, or the corresponding
                   |    550-5.7.25 forward DNS entry does not point to the sending IP. As a policy,
                   |    550-5.7.25 Gmail does not accept messages from IPs with missing PTR records.
                   |    550-5.7.25 Please visit
                   |    550-5.7.25  https://support.google.com/mail/answer/81126#ip-practices for more
                   |    550 5.7.25 information. fl6-20020a1709072a8600b008b466a03af6si17950149ejc.3 - gsmtp

This is not the case for other mail providers.

I changed the rDNS settings to point to idimitrov.dev and tested again. Same result.

Here is the output of the dig command:

   ~ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── at   08:55:53
❯ dig -x 209.250.239.243

; <<>> DiG 9.18.12 <<>> -x 209.250.239.243
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 64879
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
; COOKIE: 96ded523f01fcbcb0100000063f70e07b977d3b949d3c8d8 (good)
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;243.239.250.209.in-addr.arpa.  IN      PTR

;; ANSWER SECTION:
243.239.250.209.in-addr.arpa. 3321 IN   PTR     idimitrov.dev.

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1) (UDP)
;; WHEN: Thu Feb 23 08:56:07 EET 2023
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 112


   ~ ─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── at   08:56:07
❯ dig -x 2001:19f0:6c01:2f25:5400:04ff:fe48:12ba

; <<>> DiG 9.18.12 <<>> -x 2001:19f0:6c01:2f25:5400:04ff:fe48:12ba
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 32491
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; OPT PSEUDOSECTION:
; EDNS: version: 0, flags:; udp: 1232
; COOKIE: 82062aa836133bb70100000063f70e0a54a88c9478150aaa (good)
;; QUESTION SECTION:
;a.b.2.1.8.4.e.f.f.f.4.0.0.0.4.5.5.2.f.2.1.0.c.6.0.f.9.1.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. IN PTR

;; ANSWER SECTION:
a.b.2.1.8.4.e.f.f.f.4.0.0.0.4.5.5.2.f.2.1.0.c.6.0.f.9.1.1.0.0.2.ip6.arpa. 3445 IN PTR idimitrov.dev.

;; Query time: 0 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.0.1#53(192.168.0.1) (UDP)
;; WHEN: Thu Feb 23 08:56:10 EET 2023
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 156

It shows that I have rDNS setup for both ipv4 and ipv6.

Why does google say otherwise?

vidarlo avatar
ar flag
Try `dig -x 2001:19f0:6c01:2f25:399c:6832:fa7c:c123 @1.1.1.1 `. I don't see any reverse DNS defined.
Ivan Dimitrov avatar
vn flag
@vidarlo Google thinks I'm sending mail from a different IP apparently. My vultr dashboard shows the IP I used in the dig command, but the gmail log shows a different IPv6 IP. I'll have to open a ticket with them maybe. brb
I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.