# Bounced emails not being detected

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518>\
**Category:** Product Support\
**Tags:** email\
**Created:** [January 30, 2024, 6:36pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518 "2024-01-30T18:36:10Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 18

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![supermathie](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/supermathie/32/507518_2.png) [@supermathie](https://meta.discourse.org/u/supermathie)\
**Post date:** [February 7, 2024, 2:17am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518/18 "2024-02-07T02:17:25Z")

</div>

> [@RBoy](#):
>
> So basically the `reply_by_email_address` is used in the from header so that it comes back to that email address if it bounces.

That’s the SMTP `envelope-from`, not the `From` header. The `From` header is not used for bounces.

i.e. ① not ②:

 ![image](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/meta/original/4X/e/8/8/e88b77cf98ea663da4461e135569e5f771d1f4b8.png)

> [@RBoy](#):
>
> So, if my understanding above is correct, then if discourse can have a separate setting (`reply_to_email`) for the `reply-to` header, then that would solve the issue for the DMARC failure.

To pass DMARC, either the SPF (which validates the envelope-from in combination with the sending IP) or DKIM (which validates the From and checksums fields of the message) have to [align](https://dmarcian.com/alignment/).

It sounds like the whole point of this exercise is to have a “pretty” reply-to address, that users reply to?

You want something like this?

```plaintext
envelope-from: outgoing+12309847801923840923502389423@yyy.com
…
From: notifications@yyy.com
To: user@contoso.com
Reply-to: my_sweet_forum+12309847801923840923502389423@gmail.com

```

You _must_ have that envelope-from like so, or bounces _will not work_.

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518)._