# Separate envelope-from and reply-to email addresses to avoid DMARC failure

**URL:** <https://meta.discourse.org/t/separate-envelope-from-and-reply-to-email-addresses-to-avoid-dmarc-failure/295211>\
**Category:** Feature\
**Tags:** email\
**Created:** [February 13, 2024, 2:43pm 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:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mpalmer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/mpalmer/32/45740_2.png) [@mpalmer](https://meta.discourse.org/u/mpalmer)\
**Post date:** [February 14, 2024, 12:19am UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/separate-envelope-from-and-reply-to-email-addresses-to-avoid-dmarc-failure/295211/2 "2024-02-14T00:19:44Z")

</div>

I don’t see how bounces will be handled in this scenario. Bounces go to the envelope from, not the address in the Reply-To. So if your envelope from isn’t capable of handling VERP-tagged email, you’ll still be in the soup.

In the topic you reference, you don’t explain why DKIM signing against the domain in the `From:` header doesn’t work. That should provide DMARC alignment, even if SPF fails. That is the approach I would take, if I were in your position (either that, or take to the admins of the [yyy.com](http://yyy.com) incoming SMTP server with a pitchfork; what kind of MTA doesn’t support any kind of detail addressing?!?)

---

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