On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 12:45:42AM -0800, William Yardley wrote: > 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... It was myopia. I tried it, probably on a mailing list response where I was CC'd personally, and it did what I wanted. Subsequent trails led to my mlist messages going to moderator limbo. At first I thought I'd accidentally disabled the desired functionality while editing and mangling my muttrc files, but I finally realized that this was, in fact, not sufficient after all. > 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... Well, if you folks can give me advice on the best way to do it using an external helper script, I'll write that and distribute it, and if I can get the logic working sufficiently well I might even be willing to hack the mutt... > 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). What would the purpose of this check against reverse_name be? I'm not following your logic here. The way I was envisioning it was: 1) If use_envelope_sender is true and we know the envelope sender, we use that. 2) If not, it falls back to reverse_name, I suppose. You know, the docs don't say _where_ reverse_name comes from... just that it comes from "where you received the message". I wonder what algorithm this implies? It sounds like what I wanted, but isn't. > 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. I don't think it has to work perfectly in every case to be useful. If it doesn't work for them, people won't use it. I'm fortunate somewhat that I am the admin on boxes where I want to use this. I really like the idea of being able to backtrace where a spammer got my email address... or how someone got my email addy when emailing me. I saw one guy whose system created a very long base64 alias for every outgoing email, which he could revoke if it ever made it onto a spammer's list. Better yet, he could use it as a spamtrap address... So basically I'm using postfix, so the header is always Delivered-To. If I need to worry about duplicate or confusing headers, I'll filter them out, or use the first line that matches (which will be the most recent MTA, mine, I suspect), or do something I haven't thought of yet. It shouldn't be all that difficult. So... I know how to write the filter that extracts this... how best to hook it into mutt's various reply/bounce/resend/forward routines? -- A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? <URL:http://www.subspacefield.org/~travis/> -><-
Attachment:
pgpATzH32kfTj.pgp
Description: PGP signature