On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 11:57:09AM EST, Andrew Pimlott wrote: > 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. For your particular case, it's probably easier to just tell procmail to rename the "To:" header to "Old-To:" or something, and rename your "Delivered-To:" header to "To:" :-) - Dave -- Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor? It's simple, Skyler. You've seen what food processors do to food, right? Please visit this link: http://rotter.net/israel
Attachment:
pgpTKDAVCYWQf.pgp
Description: PGP signature