Aaron Stone wrote: > > On Oct 6, 2008, at 3:29 PM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: > >> Aaron Stone wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 6, 2008, at 11:40 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: >>> >>>> Aaron Stone wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Oct 6, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Peter Rabbitson wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If something matches we examine every forward destination. If it >>>>>> is an >>>>>> email address of the form: >>>>>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] - we just forward >>>>>> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] AND there was a YYY above we send to [EMAIL >>>>>> PROTECTED] (using >>>>>> the >>>>>> same delimiter as found in the forward in case we recognize multiple >>>>>> delimiters) >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I get what you mean here... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Suppose we do: >>>> >>>> dbmail-users -x [EMAIL PROTECTED] -t [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> Then it would be neat (and logical) for any email to >>>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] to be forwarded to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> >>>> This is just (to me) a logical extension of what is already in place. >>>> The original bug complains only about the lack of XXX+YYY@ support. >>> >>> >>> Oh, that's pretty neat. Currently the forward should work but with the >>> +mailbox removed. Does that work in practice for you? >>> >> >> I am not sure what your question is here. Can you clarify? > > Mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED] where a forward exists for [EMAIL > PROTECTED] -> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] will work, but the original message will go into WWW's > Inbox. At > least, that's what I think happens; I haven't tried this in a while. >
Yes this is what happens. And what I was proposing is expand on this schema to allow the sub-addressing to be carried over to the destination (unless the destination doesn't _already_ specify a sub-address on its own, in which case things have to be left intact) Peter _______________________________________________ DBmail mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.fastxs.nl/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
