Re: Two copies of E-Mail (Re: I wish to advocate linux)
On Fri 08 Mar 2013 at 23:19:06 -0700, Bob Proulx wrote:
> But I am a pedantic sort and so must say that every message does have
To continue with the pedantry :) and to return to the issue raised in
this subthread, a CC is not a duplicate of a list mail. Put them side by
side and the difference is obvious. One result of focussing on a single
characteristic of a mail is that the suggested Procmail recipe would
effectively delete most of the list mail, which might not be a desired
outcome.
Fortunately, Mutt users have the opportunity to take advantage of its
ability to construct a custom Message-ID: header for a mail sent to
debian-user. Like so:
send-hook . 'unmy_hdr Message-ID:'
send-hook 'debian-user@lists\.debian\.org' 'my_hdr Message-ID:<`date +"%Y%m%d%H%M%S"`NoCcsPlease@example.com>'
A mail with NoCcsPlease in its In-Reply-To or References headers can
only have had the mailing list mail as its source. However, the CC will
not contain a List-ID: header. This makes it possible to distinguish
between a list mail and a CC. Procmail recipes based on these two
conditions can now file list mail with certainty and, if desired, delete
CCs.
How this could be implemented in other MUAs depends on the capability of
the mailer. It works nicely with Mutt because of the behind-the-scenes
send-hook facility. Icedove and KMail can alter the portion of the
Message-ID: header after the @, but whether this could be made automatic
in the same way as Mutt I do not know. Header rewriting by an MTA may
also be a possibility, but I know nothing about that either.
It is reported that some mailers do not produce In-Reply-To: and
References: headers when replying to a mail. Well, you can't win 'em all.
Reply to: