Hacktoberfest 2026: the issues maintainers tagged for October, open and beginner-friendly. Browse Hacktoberfest issues

Email domains guide says Void preserves foreign MX records, but `domain add` refuses apexes that have MX records

Closed
  • Is something wrong?
#509 0 comments 0 reactions 0 assignees View on GitHub

Maintainers usually reply within 1 day

A pull request for this has already been merged.

  • #518 by @Brooooooklyn — merged

Assessment

Difficulty
2/5
Estimated time
1-3 hours
Newbie friendliness
58/100
Issue type
Documentation
Clarity
Mostly clear
Activity status
Active
Tech stack
typescript
Domain
documentation

Research direction

Read docs/guide/email/domains.md alongside docs/reference/cli/platform-email.md and the MX checks in platform/packages/api/src/email/connection-service.ts. The issue asks maintainers to clarify whether refusal is intended or foreign MX coexistence should work, so first establish that decision before editing. Done means the guide clearly describes the intended behavior and does not imply unsupported registration.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.

Description

Summary

The platform section of the email domains guide says Void "preserves foreign MX records" (docs/guide/email/domains.md L19). Read on its own, that suggests registering an apex whose mail is hosted elsewhere (for example Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace) is supported and leaves that mail alone.

The code refuses that case. Registering a custom apex fails when the domain already has MX records:

platform/packages/api/src/email/connection-service.ts L1459-L1474: "already has MX records; use an unused domain apex or a platform shared email address". On a fresh assignment any MX counts, including Cloudflare's own. On an existing assignment, any non-Cloudflare MX counts.

Use case

I operate a self-hosted Void platform serving several brands whose apex domains use Microsoft 365 for mail. I read the sentence as "register the apex, keep your mailboxes, add Void". It took a failed registration to learn that was not the intent.

What the rest of the docs say

Other text already matches the code. The same paragraph tells readers to choose an apex without another mail provider, the own-account section says Void refuses to replace another provider's MX records (L47), and docs/reference/cli/platform-email.md L76 says to use the shared address or another zone when the MX belongs to another provider. So the sentence may mean "Void does not modify them because it refuses the domain". If so, it is easy to misread.

Question

Which behaviour is intended?

  1. Refusal is intended. I can send a docs PR that rewords the sentence, for example to say that registration is refused when the apex has MX records, and that existing catch-alls on a Void-managed apex are left in place.
  2. Coexistence is intended and the refusal is a bug. In that case I would like to understand the intended design before touching code.

There is also a middle path, outbound-only custom domains, where an apex with foreign MX can send through Void while Void manages no inbound. I intend to raise that separately. If you prefer to solve the mismatch there, I can word the docs change to point at it once it lands.

Dominant language
TypeScript
Stars
402
Forks
32
Avg merge
10h 51m
Merged PRs (30d)
100

Getting set up

This project ships no dev container, Dockerfile or contributing guide, so setting up is up to you: start from its README, and see our first-contribution guide for the general steps.

First steps

  1. Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
  2. Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
  3. Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
  4. Open a pull request that references the issue number.

More from voidzero-dev/void

All issues in voidzero-dev/void

Similar issues

More TypeScript issues

Get new issues in your inbox

A short digest of beginner-friendly GitHub issues.