Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Apps | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. Support
  3. Hetzner PTR Record Invalid

Hetzner PTR Record Invalid

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Solved Support
hetznerptr
32 Posts 10 Posters 3.3k Views 10 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • Dave SwiftD Dave Swift

    Never mentioned Cloudron changing it.

    Mail is failing after last update. PTR record is in tact and correct.

    girishG Offline
    girishG Offline
    girish
    Staff
    wrote on last edited by
    #7

    @Dave-Swift I was merely removing Cloudron out of the list of suspects πŸ™‚

    You probably did this, but have you tried host -t PTR <ip> already? For example, host -t PTR 45.55.2.141 returns my.cloudron.io . This helps figuring if it's the tools at fault or if the entry itself is wrong. If entry itself is wrong, only Hetzner can fix this since they own the IP and thus the DNS space for the reverse.

    1 Reply Last reply
    2
    • Dave SwiftD Offline
      Dave SwiftD Offline
      Dave Swift
      wrote on last edited by
      #8

      Something weird definitely happened when upgrading to 8.2.1. It looks like it is not the PTR record, but rather DKIM fails (even though the records are correctly added to my DNS).

      My bounce messages from Google all specified PTR so that is why I made this post.

      I switched to a mailgun relay for the holiday break as I didn't have time to try and troubleshoot this.

      DKIM is still out.

      As I saw someone else posted in the Freescout, Freescout also stopped being able to check for mail.

      andreasduerenA 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • Dave SwiftD Dave Swift

        Something weird definitely happened when upgrading to 8.2.1. It looks like it is not the PTR record, but rather DKIM fails (even though the records are correctly added to my DNS).

        My bounce messages from Google all specified PTR so that is why I made this post.

        I switched to a mailgun relay for the holiday break as I didn't have time to try and troubleshoot this.

        DKIM is still out.

        As I saw someone else posted in the Freescout, Freescout also stopped being able to check for mail.

        andreasduerenA Offline
        andreasduerenA Offline
        andreasdueren
        wrote on last edited by
        #9

        @Dave-Swift Is this IPv4 or IPv6 that's failing?

        1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • scookeS Offline
          scookeS Offline
          scooke
          wrote on last edited by
          #10

          I just finished watching Geostorm just now, and I can't help but read these last two posts with a rising panicky voice, as though the future of the world depends on resolving this...

          A life lived in fear is a life half-lived

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • d19dotcaD Offline
            d19dotcaD Offline
            d19dotca
            wrote on last edited by d19dotca
            #11

            FWIW, I have noticed recently that my emails to Gmail addresses in particular are being rate limited and it appears to be because Google sees it as possible spam.

            When I ran some tests, I see my DKIM is no longer signed properly even though there's been no DNS changes. I've verified my DNS and everything looks good, but the date this happened according to Google Postmaster Tools is December 19th. I updated Cloudron to 8.2.0 on the night of December 18th (so basically the 19th from any Eastern Time zone or UTC-0 time).

            https://unspam.email/results/plVX3ZXGoX shows bad DKIM ("Existing DKIM Signature: The email is not signed with DKIM, whether or not it is a valid signature; Verified DKIM Signature: The email is not signed with a valid DKIM signature.") and a warning for DMARC ("The email "from" domain not matches the DKIM signature "from" domain.").

            It's too coincidental with no changes being made to DNS manually that issues start occurring with DKIM as soon as I upgraded Cloudron to 8.2.0, so I am of the mindset something is wrong in Cloudron.

            Here's a screenshot of status from Google Postmaster Tools:

            image.png

            Side note: I think the DNS records part about missing PTR record has been fixed now but the Postmaster Tools hasn't updated yet. It turned out this issue exposed a missing PTR on my IPv6 record (but was set correctly for IPv4).

            I should also add that Cloudron shows no errors at all when it run the DNS checks, it's all green. Also I ran host commands and see PTR just fine. So I think the issue is more related to DKIM at this point in Cloudron.

            % host -t PTR <ip_address>
            <ip_address>.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer mail.d19.ca.
            % host -t PTR <ipv6_address>  
            <ipv6_address>.ip6.arpa domain name pointer mail.d19.ca.
            

            Just FYI, @girish .

            --
            Dustin Dauncey
            www.d19.ca

            1 Reply Last reply
            3
            • d19dotcaD Offline
              d19dotcaD Offline
              d19dotca
              wrote on last edited by
              #12

              Not sure if related, but I do see DKIM mentioned as being replaced, and unsure if this is part of the reason or not. Maybe a reach but wanted to share this in case:

              Dec 29 21:40:15 70:M 30 Dec 2024 05:40:15.252 * Server initialized
              Dec 29 21:40:15 70:M 30 Dec 2024 05:40:15.252 * Ready to accept connections tcp
              Dec 29 21:40:15 doveconf: Warning: service auth { client_limit=1000 } is lower than required under max. load (1300). Counted for protocol services with service_count != 1: service managesieve-login { process_limit=100 } + service pop3-login { process_limit=500 } + service lmtp { process_limit=100 } + service imap-urlauth-login { process_limit=100 } + service imap-login { process_limit=500 }
              Dec 29 21:40:15 doveconf: Warning: service anvil { client_limit=1000 } is lower than required under max. load (1203). Counted with: service managesieve-login { process_limit=100 } + service pop3-login { process_limit=500 } + service imap-urlauth-login { process_limit=100 } + service imap-login { process_limit=500 } + service auth { process_limit=1 }
              Dec 29 21:40:15 Warning: service auth { client_limit=1000 } is lower than required under max. load (1300). Counted for protocol services with service_count != 1: service managesieve-login { process_limit=100 } + service pop3-login { process_limit=500 } + service lmtp { process_limit=100 } + service imap-urlauth-login { process_limit=100 } + service imap-login { process_limit=500 }
              Dec 29 21:40:15 Warning: service anvil { client_limit=1000 } is lower than required under max. load (1203). Counted with: service managesieve-login { process_limit=100 } + service pop3-login { process_limit=500 } + service imap-urlauth-login { process_limit=100 } + service imap-login { process_limit=500 } + service auth { process_limit=1 }
              Dec 29 21:40:15 loaded TLD files:
              Dec 29 21:40:15 1=1445
              Dec 29 21:40:15 2=8416
              Dec 29 21:40:15 3=3642
              Dec 29 21:40:15 loaded 9773 Public Suffixes
              Dec 29 21:40:15 Mail service endpoint listening on http://:::3000
              Dec 29 21:40:15 loglevel: INFO
              Dec 29 21:40:15 log format: DEFAULT
              Dec 29 21:40:15 Starting up Haraka version 3.0.5
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading delay_deny
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading dns-list
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading helo.checks
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading headers
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading tls
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [core] loading tls.ini
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading spf
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading cloudron
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading rcpt_to.in_host_list
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [NOTICE] [-] [plugins] dkim_sign has been replaced by 'dkim'. Please update config/plugins
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading dkim
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading spamassassin
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading queue/smtp_forward
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [plugins] loading limit
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [NOTICE] [-] [server] Listening on [::0]:2525
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [server] getting SocketOpts for SMTPS server
              Dec 29 21:40:15 TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'loopback_is_rejected')
              Dec 29 21:40:15 at exports.checkZoneNegative (/app/code/haraka/node_modules/haraka-plugin-dns-list/index.js:347:22)
              Dec 29 21:40:15 at exports.check_zone (/app/code/haraka/node_modules/haraka-plugin-dns-list/index.js:372:20)
              Dec 29 21:40:15 at async Promise.all (index 0)
              Dec 29 21:40:15 at async exports.check_zones (/app/code/haraka/node_modules/haraka-plugin-dns-list/index.js:393:5)
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [dns-list] will re-test list zones every 30 minutes
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [server] Creating TLS server on [::0]:2465
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [NOTICE] [-] [server] Listening on [::0]:2465
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [NOTICE] [-] [server] Listening on [::0]:2587
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [cloudron] Initializing queue server on port 6000
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [limit] connected to redis://127.0.0.1:6379/4
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [outbound/queue] Loading outbound queue from /app/data/haraka-queue
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [outbound/queue] Loading the queue...
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [outbound/queue] [pid: undefined] 0 files in my delivery queue
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [outbound/queue] [pid: undefined] 0 files in my load queue
              Dec 29 21:40:15 [INFO] [-] [outbound/queue] [pid: undefined] 2 files in my temp fail queue
              Dec 29 21:40:16 INFO [main] 05:40:16,091 org.apache.tika.server.core.TikaServerProcess Starting Apache Tika 3.0.0 server
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: dovecot entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: haraka entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: mail-service entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: redis entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: solr entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: spamd entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              Dec 29 21:40:16 2024-12-30 05:40:16,311 INFO success: tika entered RUNNING state, process has stayed up for > than 1 seconds (startsecs)
              

              --
              Dustin Dauncey
              www.d19.ca

              1 Reply Last reply
              3
              • d19dotcaD Offline
                d19dotcaD Offline
                d19dotca
                wrote on last edited by
                #13

                Last thing to add... here is a screenshot from Google Postmaster tools which shows that the DKIM success rate went down after the upgrade to Cloudron 8.2.0 when taking into account the event dates.

                image.png

                It seems like Cloudron isn't signing the mail with DKIM signatures at all, as if it's been disabled or something. I think we need this patched ASAP, please. πŸ™

                --
                Dustin Dauncey
                www.d19.ca

                1 Reply Last reply
                4
                • d19dotcaD d19dotca referenced this topic on
                • matix131997M Offline
                  matix131997M Offline
                  matix131997
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #14

                  I also confirm with myself the problem with DKIM and DMARC, which test says that β€œfrom” does not match the domain.

                  I did a test on the site: https://unspam.email/results/uPOw0MP1f2

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  2
                  • matix131997M Offline
                    matix131997M Offline
                    matix131997
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #15

                    I did a comparison between the e-mail that was sent earlier, before version 8.2.0, and now.

                    Before version 8.2.0
                    Zrzut ekranu 2024-12-30 o 11.33.08.png
                    After 8.2.0
                    Zrzut ekranu 2024-12-30 o 11.33.21.png

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    5
                    • robiR Offline
                      robiR Offline
                      robi
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #16

                      Can someone test toggling the DKIM setup to see if 8.2 can actually set it?
                      Or a new sub.domain.. might help narrow it down

                      Conscious tech

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      2
                      • matix131997M Offline
                        matix131997M Offline
                        matix131997
                        wrote on last edited by matix131997
                        #17

                        I had a domain that I bought accidentally with the wrong name.

                        Old Domain:
                        OLD DOMAIN.PNG

                        New Domain:
                        NEW DOMAIN.PNG

                        Half of the settings are gone. 😡

                        Records in DNS:
                        Przechwytywanie.PNG

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        0
                        • robiR Offline
                          robiR Offline
                          robi
                          wrote on last edited by robi
                          #18

                          Did you set up and enable email for the new domain?

                          EDIT: 😏

                          Conscious tech

                          matix131997M 1 Reply Last reply
                          0
                          • robiR robi

                            Did you set up and enable email for the new domain?

                            EDIT: 😏

                            matix131997M Offline
                            matix131997M Offline
                            matix131997
                            wrote on last edited by matix131997
                            #19

                            @robi Yes

                            EDIT: F***, I forgot about that πŸ˜„

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            1
                            • matix131997M Offline
                              matix131997M Offline
                              matix131997
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #20

                              I enabled email. I sent email from that domain and still the same as above. And the records are like this after the launch.
                              Przechwytywanie.PNG

                              1 Reply Last reply
                              0
                              • robiR Offline
                                robiR Offline
                                robi
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #21

                                Records are fine, does the Cloudron status think they're fine?

                                Does the external test think the records match now?

                                How are the mail headers?

                                Let's not miss any testing steps after making changes..

                                Conscious tech

                                matix131997M 1 Reply Last reply
                                1
                                • d19dotcaD Offline
                                  d19dotcaD Offline
                                  d19dotca
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #22

                                  The Cloudron status shows everything green in my instance. The DNS records are perfectly fine. The issue is the Haraka SMTP service in Cloudron seems to no longer be signing the messages properly so they are missing DKIM signatures.

                                  --
                                  Dustin Dauncey
                                  www.d19.ca

                                  1 Reply Last reply
                                  4
                                  • robiR robi

                                    Records are fine, does the Cloudron status think they're fine?

                                    Does the external test think the records match now?

                                    How are the mail headers?

                                    Let's not miss any testing steps after making changes..

                                    matix131997M Offline
                                    matix131997M Offline
                                    matix131997
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #23

                                    @robi Yes, all points in the status are in green. Message headers the same as above - post #15

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    2
                                    • d19dotcaD Offline
                                      d19dotcaD Offline
                                      d19dotca
                                      wrote on last edited by d19dotca
                                      #24

                                      @nebulon / @girish , I think unfortunately this is coming down to a defect in 8.2.x where the DKIM signatures are not being used to sign outgoing messages.

                                      I'm thinking we will need a patch for that as soon as possible, please as it's having a big impact in connecting to certain mail providers (seems to mostly be Google at the moment but I'm sure others are affected to a degree too). In the meantime, I may need to switch to a different SMTP server / relay service temporarily.

                                      If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. I can offer SSH connection into my server if you require it too. πŸ™‚

                                      --
                                      Dustin Dauncey
                                      www.d19.ca

                                      andreasduerenA 1 Reply Last reply
                                      5
                                      • d19dotcaD d19dotca

                                        @nebulon / @girish , I think unfortunately this is coming down to a defect in 8.2.x where the DKIM signatures are not being used to sign outgoing messages.

                                        I'm thinking we will need a patch for that as soon as possible, please as it's having a big impact in connecting to certain mail providers (seems to mostly be Google at the moment but I'm sure others are affected to a degree too). In the meantime, I may need to switch to a different SMTP server / relay service temporarily.

                                        If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. I can offer SSH connection into my server if you require it too. πŸ™‚

                                        andreasduerenA Offline
                                        andreasduerenA Offline
                                        andreasdueren
                                        wrote on last edited by
                                        #25

                                        @d19dotca said in Hetzner PTR Record Invalid:

                                        @nebulon / @girish , I think unfortunately this is coming down to a defect in 8.2.x where the DKIM signatures are not being used to sign outgoing messages.

                                        I'm thinking we will need a patch for that as soon as possible, please as it's having a big impact in connecting to certain mail providers (seems to mostly be Google at the moment but I'm sure others are affected to a degree too). In the meantime, I may need to switch to a different SMTP server / relay service temporarily.

                                        If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. I can offer SSH connection into my server if you require it too. πŸ™‚

                                        Of THAT could be the case that I'm currently getting lots of failing DKIM reports

                                        1 Reply Last reply
                                        0
                                        • J joseph marked this topic as a question on
                                        • girishG Offline
                                          girishG Offline
                                          girish
                                          Staff
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #26

                                          There is indeed a regression with DKIM signing. This is fixed now. Will get a patch release out asap.

                                          KubernetesK 1 Reply Last reply
                                          8
                                          • girishG girish has marked this topic as solved on
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Bookmarks
                                          • Search