On 11 6 2003 at 10:14 pm -0400, Jay wrote: >I'm intrigued by your problem/issue/question but I, like apparently many >on the list, can't quite grasp what you're saying. If you can rephrase >and simplify your description of the problem and the issue, perhaps a few >on the list will be able to spot a solution.
In essence, here is the situation: I have several POP3 boxes on different servers, so accordingly, I have as many Mail Accounts set up in PM. One of these boxes receives mail addressed to several different addresses at several different domains. This works fine, until I go to reply to a message received on this account. If the message was not addressed to the same e-mail address as in the Mail Account setting, PM will treat it like it does with a CC: or multiple-To: situation and include the address in the list out outbound recipients. I then need to manually remove that from the recipient list, since in practice it is the same account I am replying from (but PM doesn't know this). To illustrate: my Mail Account is set for [EMAIL PROTECTED], with a POP3 box on mail.zygoat.ca. However, that box receives anything addressed to @zygoat.ca that isn't specifically configured; same deal for @doggiebox.com. On a typical day, I will get piles of mail addressed to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but also some for [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] and so on. Say you send me a message, to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If I hit reply, PM puts [EMAIL PROTECTED] in the recipient list, and all is well. Fine. Say you send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], though. I'll still get it, but when I hit reply, PM addresses two people in the reply: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, I then have to remove the latter since my intent is not to mail myself a copy of the reply. My feature request entailed being able to specify, in the Mail Account setup, that the account receives bulk mail to addresses matching given pattern(s) which PM would treat as "local" and therefore smartly handle in a reply situation. If PM would let me enter some regular expressions for this, it would be ideal. For example in my case, I would specify ([EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED]). For bonus points, if PM would extend the power of regular expressions to the general filtering system, that would be even cooler. -ben -- Ben Kennedy, chief magician zygoat creative technical services 613-228-3392 | 1-866-466-4628 http://www.zygoat.ca
