I wrote in <20180606155145.j9xm6%stef...@sdaoden.eu>:
|Michael Dressel wrote in <alpine.LNX.2.21.99.1806060914001.4219@mpslx350\
|17.desy.de>:
...
||I think I should not have used the -r option. Because I wanted to set
||a list of several addresses in the From: field and send carbon copies
||to several addresses via Cc:.
...
||Now I see, using -r replaces my From: field with the single
||sender. It does correctly create the Cc: with a list of addresses.
|
|After the bug was fixed, yes, it does again.
...
||But if I don't use -r the Cc: is not created. While the From: field is
||set to the list, as I intended.
||
|| $ </dev/null ./s-nail -:/ -d -s test -c
a...@b.org,b...@b.org,c...@c.org \
|| -S expandaddr -S from=a...@b.org,b...@b.org,c...@c.org -S
sender=a...@b.org \
|| b...@b.org /tmp/test.mail
|| s-nail: P(seudo)R(andomNumber)G(enerator): *SSL RAND_*
|| s-nail: >>> Writing message via /tmp/test.mail
|| s-nail: >>> MTA: /usr/bin/sendmail, arguments: sendmail -i -- b...@b.org
|| s-nail: >>> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 09:38:26 +0200
|| s-nail: >>> From: a...@b.org, b...@b.org, c...@c.org
|| s-nail: >>> Sender: a...@b.org
|| s-nail: >>> To: b...@b.org
|| s-nail: >>> Subject: test
|| s-nail: >>> Message-ID: <20180606073826.tbu4...@b.org>
|| s-nail: >>> User-Agent: s-nail v14.9.10
|| s-nail: >>>
|
|I see. From a glance it seems alternates/metoo processing is too
|aggressive, i am looking into this in a second!
|Even more thanks for reporting and staying with us.
I have changed our behaviour on [master]+ so that, if Sender: is
set, the content of From: is no longer automatically taken into
account when doing processing of so-called `alternates' addresses,
the result being:
#?0[steffen@essex nail.git]$ </dev/null .obj/s-nail -:/ -d \
-s test -c a...@b.org,b...@b.org,c...@c.org -S expandaddr \
-S from=a...@b.org,b...@b.org,c...@c.org \
-S sender=a...@b.org b...@b.org
s-nail: P(seudo)R(andomNumber)G(enerator): arc4random
s-nail: >>> MTA: /usr/sbin/sendmail, arguments: sendmail -i -- b...@b.org
a...@b.org c...@c.org
s-nail: >>> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 19:40:25 +0200
s-nail: >>> From: a...@b.org, b...@b.org, c...@c.org
s-nail: >>> Sender: a...@b.org
s-nail: >>> To: b...@b.org
s-nail: >>> Cc: a...@b.org, c...@c.org
s-nail: >>> Subject: test
s-nail: >>> Message-ID: <20180606174025.ng6r...@b.org>
s-nail: >>> User-Agent: s-nail v14.9.10-120-g6789ee10
s-nail: >>>
The (POSIX) standard and other MUAs too seem to not do any
processing of `alternates' (the command to register such
explicitly) when sending mail, only when replying.
I have extended this processing to all invocations, because it
seems a bit strange, where is the difference? I have to adjust
this for *posix*/$POSIXLY_CORRECT it seems, however!
Anyway, it seems there are more problems with for example false
moving of addresses to secondary headers, for example in
Envelope contains:
From: a...@b.org, b...@b.org, c...@c.org
Sender: a...@b.org
To: b...@b.org
Cc: b...@b.org, c...@c.org, a...@b.org
->
Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 20:11:24 +0200
From: a...@b.org, b...@b.org, c...@c.org
Sender: a...@b.org
Cc: b...@b.org, c...@c.org, a...@b.org
Subject: Re: test
so i think i will have to look a bit deeper and create more test
cases before moving on.
Ciao, and greetings to Hamburg!
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
