Re: Has anyone ever thought of getting the reply-to changed?
Thorsten Haude wrote:
* Steve Lamb wrote (2004-02-08 11:29):
1: The person has access to install a decent MDA on said machine.
2: The person has access at ALL to configure said MDA in the first place.
I assume that there is a MDA installed yes.
Why? QMail, Sendmail, Exim and I believe Postfix all do not require an
MDA. Furthermore only one, to my knowledge, does any filtering at all. Of
course those are only the major 4 on unix. Imagine retreiving mail w/POP from
a Windows box for a moment.
> That is not so far-fetched
as you seem to think. The MDAs I know can also be configured by the
user without access to global configuration file.
Presuming the user has shell or FTP access to the machine.
I don't understand the problem you pose. Of course I don't use an MDA
at work on the Windows box, where I have to use Outlook once in a
while. But we are not discussing Windows or any other static OS here,
we are discussing Debian.
Ah-ah-ah, we're not discussing Debian, are we? This is a Debian list but
the thread started out about reply-to for clients which are RFC2369 ignorant.
Those clients can exist on any OS. Example:
From: Steve Lamb <grey@dmiyu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (Windows/20040120)
^^^^^^^
3: Having internal filtering does not preclude using external filtering.
I assume no such thing, I just don't see the reason to use internal
filters if external filters do all I need.
You're presuming they do all you need. I rather like having some mail
show up in different colors to highlight their priority in my mind. Oh, let's
not forget I also completely enjoy being able to mark them read as they pass
through the filter. Something which each client does differently. That's
esp. useful on the "mark read and delete" filters so my trash doesn't show
tons of new mail.
So Mutt is inflexible because you are *forced* to use a highly
flexible approach? That doesn't make sense to me.
Mutt is inflexible because I am forced to use an approach which is
unsuited to my needs and is incapable of handling it.
Mutt is certainly not for everyone, but that is only because the setup
requires more work, not because you are restricted in any way.
Really. Access 2 mail accounts using completely separate settings,
keeping separate sent-archives, separate SMTP servers, separate inbound
servers, keep the mail separate at all points from retrival through filtering
and onto delivery into the local folders. Last I checked (3-4 months ago)
mutt couldn't do it.
You didn't read the archives, did you? *sigh*
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: