Re: [PATCH] ME's SMTP relay patch ported to CVS
On Wednesday, 07 September 2005 at 11:49, David Champion wrote:
> * On 2005.09.07, in <20050907150236.GB8839@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> * "Brendan Cully" <brendan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > It'd be tempting to make $envelope_from an address (possibly renaming
> > the current $envelope_from to $use_envelope_from). This is a simple
> > thing to do, but why is it specific to the SMTP relay? ie why
> > didn't/don't we do this for the regular old sendmail interface?
>
>
> I think this would be nice, perhaps even wise. Two approaches come to
> mind:
>
> - use the existing % notation -- e.g, %f in $sendmail expands to the
> value of $envelope_from. But this suggests that %f expansion should
> have boolean functionality, so that you can say
> set sendmail="/usr/lib/sendmail %?f?-f %f?"
>
> What is the scope of such an expansion? I suspect that a %f expansion
> would apply within all variables; this might be suboptimal. An
> artificial scope value could be created and bound to the option as an
> enumerated parameter of option_t, and this would provide extensible
> expandos to a variety of options that frankly could use it, without
> conflict. (Just choose the appropriate scope value, or create a new
> one.)
Right now $envelope_from causes mutt to pass -f $from to sendmail, I
believe. It'd be trivial to change this to -f $envelope_from, no
expandos required.
> - allow expansion of config variables within config variables. :) E.g.,
> set sendmail="/usr/lib/sendmail -f $envelope_from".
This would be nice, but it isn't necessary just for
$envelope_from. Are you just trying to sneak in a pet feature? ;)
Although personally I'd be all for expanding mutt config variables,
and well-disposed towards an if statement too. I suppose at some point
along this path the spectre of scheme bindings will rear its ugly head
again though.