Mihai Lazarescu <[email protected]> wrote on Sun, 23 Sep 2018 at 11:50:01 +0200 in <[email protected]>:
> If non-mutt solutions are acceptable, I'd change [email protected] to > [email protected] in some procmail rule(s). Thanks, Mihai. I'm loathe to reject all non-mutt solutions, but I don't have a practical way to run procmail (or anything else) before messages are delivered to the IMAP server. So no that doesn't work for me. (I think, also, that I'd not be really comfortable with the idea of modifying the headers[*] that come on a message. Adding headers seems fine, but modifying the existing ones seems like a line that shouldn't be crossed. In a world where we have DKIM, it seems an especially bad idea, although I don't know if DKIM tends to include the To: header in its crypto hashes). [email protected] John Hawkinson [*] I will say I've given serious thought to modifying the Date: field for messages that express the date in UTC that are sent by people who are in substantially on-UTC timezones, like US/Eastern, so I can't say I'm as much of an absolutist on this point as my words might suggest....
