[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

> At 09 Nov 2003 16:47:36 -0600,
> Tim Legant wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > For mail CC'd from Gmane postings, this does not work, since I need
> > > the From header of the Gmane posting to be [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > 
> > I don't understand this.  Are you referring to messages that you post
> > to Gmane (through a news-reader) and simultaneously CC to someone
> > else?  tmda-sendmail (and thus your outgoing filter) don't come into
> > play with news postings using NNTP.  
> 
> Perhaps this is a client specific issue. I am using wanderlust, which
> allows both a To (or CC) header and a Newsgroups header.  The message
> is then sent via NNTP to the newsgroup and via SMTP to wherever.
> I think gnus works the same way.

Correct.  I was just digging to make sure I understood.  That means
that only the message sent via SMTP (actually, via tmda-sendmail) gets
tagged according to your outgoing filter.  The headers you provide in
wanderlust will go directly to NNTP; do not pass tmda-sendmail, do not
collect $200.

So to cause your From field to go to Gmane untouched, you can just set
it to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.  Do you also want the From header of the mail
message to be '[EMAIL PROTECTED]', or do you want it to reference your
local machine, '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'?  If the latter, then the
solution is to create a rule (possibly the last rule, your default) to
set your From to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' and then the Reply-To will be
based off of that.  If, on the other hand, you want outgoing email to
use the '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' From the same , I see the problem.

I think you had mentioned that you're currently generating the
Reply-To manually.  Does wanderlust have a facility to call an
external program and set a header field from its standard output?  If
it did, you could call tmda-address via that mechanism, so generating
a dated Reply-To isn't quite so manual, and then remove the 'reply-to
dated=2w' from your rule.

We had, at one point, talked about providing that capability in the
outgoing filter.  Perhaps that would provide a more general service
that could be used to solve your address problem, as well as other
requests as yet unheard.

Regardless of which scenario you actually want and the workaround
you're currently using, I think the limitation you point out is
something that we should address.  Ahem.


Tim

_____________________________________________
tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users

Reply via email to