<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: when replying, use envelope recipient



On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:20:14AM +0100, Damnshock wrote:
> On Tuesday 19 December 2006 04:41, Derek Martin wrote:

> > Not everyone wants to be an expert on everything Mutt does, and
> > no one should have to if they don't want/need to; but they still
> > have the right to have their questions answered by people who are
> > willing to do it.

I totally agree with Derek's message. While there are some places where
people should probably RTFM, it's not always easy to tell where to look,
especially if you're not really familiar with mutt. A gentle pointer to
the right section of TFM, at least, is called for.

> I agree with you but my answer was a bit upset because, if you read
> Travis's first mail, you'll notice that he seems to not have made
> ANY search about his question.

Really, no one has really answered his ACTUAL question, which is to use
the envelope-recipient of a message. I don't know if that's what he
actually meant, since he seemed to be happy with $reverse_name...

However, there's no way to do what he asked with mutt AFAIK, and it
would be hard to accomplish, since some MTAs don't include the envelope
recipient, or don't include it in all cases, and when they do include
it, it's not in a standard form (Sendmail uses X-Apparently-To, Postfix
uses X-Original-To, some just include it as part of the Received
headers, etc.). So since he's asking about something that mutt doesn't
do, I don't think the fact that he wrote the list implies that he didn't
do any searching around.

I was thinking that it would be kind of cool if mutt had such a feature
(you give mutt a header field name to check for the message's
envelope-recipient, and mutt checks it against reverse name). This would
be handy for situations where you use a unique address for stuff (e.g.,
mailing lists) where your name isn't necessarily in the To or Cc fields.
But I think it would be hard to make such a feature work well, plus I
doubt there's someone who would want to write a patch, so I never put in
a feature request.

w