Re: [patch] Re: Reply-To header problem
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 05:17:07PM +0100, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Andrew Pimlott in <20040121132656.GS21327@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Why can't it look at Delivered-To, if that is semi-standard? It
> > would make mutt act more intuitively for many users. Would a patch
> > to recognize Delivered-To (and perhaps others) if there is no match
> > in To or Cc be accepted?
>
> To properly serve it's purpose, $alternates must only look at To and Cc
> to recognize mail directed to you. If it would recognize every mail you
> get, it would be useless.
>
> It might be good in the context of $reverse_name to look at other
> headers, but that would probably require many changes to the mutt code.
I agree that reverse_name is the only place this header would be
consulted. (Even then it may not be perfect, as another poster
explained, but if there is no match in To or Cc, it's the best we've
got.) It's too bad it wouldn't be a simple change, but I may work
on it anyway.
> Just use send-hooks to set your From: address for mailing lists, this
> works.
The case I'm more interested in is when I generate a unique address
for a company that wants to email me. Sometime they send mail with
software that suppresses To and Cc, but I still want to reply with
my unique address. There's no reliable way to do this with a
send-hook, because companies often use other domains for their
email. Using Delivered-To fits the bill perfectly in my mail
configuration.
Andrew