# Bounced emails not being detected **URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518 **Category:** 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:** 19
### Author: ![RBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@RBoy](https://meta.discourse.org/u/RBoy) #### Post date: [February 7, 2024, 2:06pm UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518/19 "2024-02-07T14:06:15Z")
> [@supermathie](#): > > 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 > > ``` Yes, that’s correct. The idea to have the `envelope-from` different from the `reply-to`. Since the `envelope-from` domain and the sending IP match, the SPF should pass but at the same time the reply can go to GMail to process responses and if the email should bounce it’ll head back to the original domain server which can then forward the bounce back to the GMail inbox as well. It would actually look like this: ```plaintext envelope-from: outgoing@yyy.com … From: notifications@yyy.com To: user@contoso.com Reply-to: my_sweet_forum+12309847801923840923502389423@gmail.com ``` In my setup the outgoing won’t have a VERP because my incoming SMTP doesn’t support VERP (i.e. the bounce back won’t have a VERP address), that’s why the `reply-to` is being sent to GMail because it supports VERP. This shouldn’t cause a DMARC failure as it does right now. --- _[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518)._