How to add an MX record to a subdomain when CNAMEs are used for email sending verification?
Michael Ko
Co-founder & CEO, Suped
Published 22 Jun 2025
Updated 14 Aug 2025
11 min read
Summary
When using CNAME records for email sending verification, adding an MX record to a subdomain presents a common challenge, particularly for compliance with certification bodies like ReturnPath. The primary concern is navigating DNS best practices, which generally advise against placing other record types (like MX) on a hostname that also has a CNAME record. However, the need for an MX record on a sending subdomain remains crucial for proper email flow and deliverability, enabling the subdomain to receive bounce messages and replies.
Key findings
CNAME-MX conflict: It is generally not reliable to have a CNAME record and any other record type (such as an MX record) for the same exact hostname (left-hand side).
MX pointing at CNAME: An MX record pointing at a CNAME (meaning the CNAME resolves to an A record, and the MX points to that A record or another CNAME that does so) might work, but it violates some RFCs and is not considered best practice.
ReturnPath requirements: Certification programs, such as ReturnPath, typically look for the existence of an MX record on the sending subdomain to confirm its legitimacy. This often involves checking tools like MXToolbox.
Automated DNS: Many email service providers (ESPs) that require CNAMEs for domain verification automatically configure corresponding SPF, DKIM, and MX records for the subdomains they manage. Always confirm if this automation is in place.
Receiving mail: Any domain or subdomain used for sending email should have a functional MX record to allow for the reception of bounces, replies, and other critical mail. This is fundamental for good deliverability, irrespective of specific verification needs.
Key considerations
DNS configuration: Carefully review your DNS settings. If a CNAME is already in place for the subdomain, adding an MX record to the same hostname is likely to cause conflicts or prevent either record from resolving correctly. You can learn more about general DNS record placement.
Hostname for MX: If the CNAME points to a domain managed by your ESP, that ESP should provide the MX record details. Otherwise, you might need a dedicated subdomain (e.g., mail.yoursubdomain.com) for MX records if the main sending subdomain is strictly a CNAME.
Verification methods: Confirm the exact verification requirements with the third-party service (like ReturnPath). They may have specific instructions or alternative verification methods for subdomains using CNAMEs.
Impact on deliverability: Ensuring an MX record exists on your sending subdomain helps maintain good email deliverability, even if it doesn't directly handle incoming user mail. It signifies a legitimate sending domain capable of receiving administrative messages.
DNS lookup behavior: Understand how DNS lookups work when CNAMEs are involved, as they can sometimes interfere with other record types if not configured precisely.
What email marketers say
Email marketers often face practical challenges when configuring DNS for email sending, especially when using CNAMEs for verification. The key is balancing technical requirements from certification bodies with the realities of DNS standards and ESP automation. While the ideal DNS setup avoids CNAMEs and other records on the same hostname, real-world scenarios sometimes require workarounds or careful consideration of how ESPs manage subdomains.
Key opinions
ReturnPath's expectation: Many marketers believe ReturnPath (or similar certification programs) primarily checks for the *existence* of an MX record on the subdomain via public tools like MXToolbox, rather than its functionality for receiving user mail.
Automated DNS from ESPs: A common observation among marketers is that most ESPs providing CNAME-based verification also automatically handle SPF, DKIM, and MX records for the associated subdomain, simplifying setup.
CNAME for ownership vs. delivery: Marketers often use CNAMEs for simple domain ownership verification, which is distinct from using them to dictate actual email delivery paths. This distinction is important for understanding potential conflicts.
Subdomain purpose: Some marketers emphasize that a sending subdomain (even one primarily used for tracking or authentication) still benefits from having an MX record for general deliverability, ensuring it can receive non-delivery reports or other system messages. You can also explore implications of using different root and subdomain email addresses.
Key considerations
Consult ESP documentation: Before manually adding an MX record, check your ESP's documentation or support for their recommended DNS setup, especially concerning subdomains used with CNAMEs.
Verify automated records: Use DNS lookup tools (like dig or online MX lookup tools) to confirm if your CNAME-linked subdomain already has an MX record provided by your ESP.
Separate subdomains: If manual MX record addition is necessary and conflicts with an existing CNAME on the same hostname, consider using a separate subdomain (e.g., reply.yourdomain.com) dedicated to receiving mail, with its own MX record.
Testing and troubleshooting: After any DNS changes, thoroughly test deliverability and monitor for issues. Tools like the Suped Email Deliverability Tester can help identify problems.
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks indicates that ReturnPath generally requires an MX record for certification, and if the CNAME setup includes MX details, there should not be an issue. They specifically look for an MX record result for the subdomain using tools like MXToolbox.
17 Jul 2019 - Email Geeks
Marketer view
Marketer from Email Geeks advises confirming whether CNAME records automate MX records. They note that many companies offering CNAME records for subdomains automatically set up SPF, MX, and other DNS entries for the customer.
17 Jul 2019 - Email Geeks
What the experts say
DNS experts underscore that while CNAMEs are essential for certain functionalities, they come with strict rules regarding coexistence with other record types. The fundamental principle that any sending domain needs an MX record for proper mail flow is highlighted, distinct from specific verification needs. They also differentiate between using CNAMEs for domain ownership verification and for actual mail delivery, clarifying that these are separate concerns.
Key opinions
CNAME-other record conflict: Experts firmly state that you cannot reliably have a CNAME and any other record type (like MX or A records) with the exact same hostname (left-hand side of the DNS entry). Doing so will lead to unreliable DNS resolution.
MX pointing at CNAME: While an MX record pointing to a CNAME (where the CNAME itself resolves to an A record) might function in most cases, it is considered bad practice and may violate certain RFCs.
Mandatory MX for sending domains: A key expert opinion is that any domain used for sending mail absolutely must have an MX record, independent of certification requirements. This is necessary for the domain to receive mail back, such as bounces or automated replies. This also ties into managing bounce responses.
CNAME purpose clarity: It's important to distinguish between using CNAMEs for domain ownership verification (e.g., for an ESP) and their role in actual mail delivery or reception. These are distinct DNS functions.
Key considerations
Avoid CNAME-MX collision: Never create a CNAME record and an MX record for the identical subdomain hostname. If a CNAME is required for verification, the MX record for email reception must either be handled automatically by the CNAME's target or be placed on a different, dedicated subdomain.
RFC compliance: While some non-compliant configurations might 'work,' adhering to RFCs ensures maximum reliability and avoids potential deliverability issues with strict mail servers. This is particularly relevant when considering DNS issues that cause email failures.
Clarify requirements: For specific verification needs (e.g., ReturnPath), ascertain whether they require a fully functional mail-receiving subdomain or simply the presence of an MX record entry that resolves, even if it points to a service that doesn't actively process incoming mail.
Subdomain strategy: Develop a clear subdomain strategy, where each subdomain's purpose (e.g., sending, tracking, receiving bounces) dictates its DNS record configuration. This can help avoid conflicts. For instance, consider whether your subdomains should host their own MX records.
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks states that the specific needs will depend on ReturnPath's requirements. They emphasize that you cannot reliably have a CNAME and any other record (like MX) with the same hostname (left-hand side) and expect DNS to work correctly, so this should be avoided.
17 Jul 2019 - Email Geeks
Expert view
Expert from Email Geeks cautions that an MX record pointing at a CNAME (where the CNAME then resolves to an IP) is not ideal practice and likely violates some RFCs, though it often still functions in many scenarios.
17 Jul 2019 - Email Geeks
What the documentation says
Official DNS documentation and standards, particularly RFCs, provide the foundational rules for how different record types interact. While some real-world implementations might deviate or introduce workarounds, the core principles regarding CNAME co-existence with other records are clear. Documentation also stresses the importance of an MX record for any domain expected to receive mail, including those primarily used for sending.
Key findings
RFC 1034 (DNS Concepts): States that if a CNAME record exists at a particular node, no other resource records (e.g., A, MX, TXT) are allowed for that same node. This is a fundamental rule to prevent ambiguity in DNS resolution.
RFC 2181 (DNS Clarifications): Further clarifies that if a CNAME is present, it must be the only record at that name, except for DNSSEC records. Any other data at that name is explicitly forbidden.
Purpose of MX records: DNS documentation consistently defines MX records as essential for specifying mail servers responsible for receiving email for a given domain. This applies universally to any domain that needs to receive mail, including bounces from outgoing messages.
Subdomain treatment: DNS operates hierarchically, meaning subdomains are treated as separate zones relative to their parent domain for most record types. This allows for flexible configuration of subdomains, but the CNAME rule still applies to the specific subdomain hostname.
Key considerations
Strict compliance: For maximum compatibility and to avoid unexpected failures, strictly adhere to the DNS RFCs. If a subdomain requires a CNAME, it should not have an MX record directly on that same label. This often requires alternative subdomain naming for MX purposes.
Domain vs. Subdomain: Understand that while a root domain may have multiple record types, a subdomain acting as a CNAME has this restriction. This is a common point of confusion leading to DNS errors.
Delegation and automation: When delegating a subdomain via CNAME to an ESP, it's the ESP's responsibility to manage the associated DNS records, including MX, if they intend for that subdomain to be used for sending mail that can receive responses.
Debugging with tools: When troubleshooting, use standard DNS lookup tools (like dig, nslookup) to confirm how DNS records for a subdomain are actually resolving, rather than relying solely on control panel displays. This is critical for verifying DMARC, DKIM, and SPF setup.
Technical article
Amazon Web Services (AWS) documentation describes issues when establishing custom MAIL FROM subdomains with TXT and MX records in GoDaddy, particularly if a CNAME record is already in place. This indicates a common conflict between CNAMEs and other record types.
05 Mar 2024 - repost.aws
Technical article
AWS documentation also details challenges encountered when trying to add an MX record for a subdomain like 'email.miles.co.uk' in Route53, specifically noting an error that only one MX record is allowed per domain. This highlights complexities in managing multiple email services on subdomains.
