# 为避免 DMARC 失败，请将发件人和回复地址分开

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/separate-envelope-from-and-reply-to-email-addresses-to-avoid-dmarc-failure/295211>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Tags:** email\
**Created:** [2024 年2 月 13 日 14:43 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/separate-envelope-from-and-reply-to-email-addresses-to-avoid-dmarc-failure/295211 "2024-02-13T14:43:12Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

作者： ![RBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@RBoy](https://meta.discourse.org/u/RBoy)\
发布日期： [2024 年2 月 13 日 14:43 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/separate-envelope-from-and-reply-to-email-addresses-to-avoid-dmarc-failure/295211/1 "2024-02-13T14:43:12Z")

</div>

在此开启一个新的功能请求，目前 Discourse 只允许使用单个电子邮件地址，该地址同时用于 `envelope-from` 和 `reply-to`。如果一个站点希望使用自己的域 SMTP 发送电子邮件，但希望电子邮件回复发送到另一个域（例如 Gmail），那么发送的电子邮件将因 DMARC 失败。通过分离这两个标头字段，可以避免 DMARC 失败，也不会丢失处理退回邮件的能力。

关于此主题的更多详细信息：

> [@Bounced emails not being detected](https://meta.discourse.org/t/bounced-emails-not-being-detected/293518/19):
>
> 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: envelope-from: outgoing@yyy.com … From: notifications@yyy.com To: user@contoso.com Reply…

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/separate-envelope-from-and-reply-to-email-addresses-to-avoid-dmarc-failure/295211)._