On 3/10/13, Brian <a...@cityscape.co.uk> wrote: > 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 .. > 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"`noccsple...@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.
Cool :) Thanks for sharing. Appreciated. > 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. Would it be possible to also pipe outgoing mail through procmail or similar, on its way to the MTA/SMTP server? cheers zenaan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caosgnssmr+1nerqm0_w7h1pnw6mt2htlnmrh8qer6rtkqk3...@mail.gmail.com