At 13:52 +0200 13 Nov 1999, Mikko Hänninen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This brings my mind a question to "those who know", can I choose to
> use $reverse_name in send-hooks? Ie. if I have
>
> send-hook . set reverse_name; blah blah
> send-hook '~t some@recipient' unset reverse_name; blah blah
>
> Will something like that work? The idea is of course that I only want
> $reverse_name to work for *some* of my email addresses. And
> particularly, if someone happens to send me email at eg.
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] I want the reply to go out as
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] I'm not sure if using send-hooks for
> $reverse_name setting solves this problem, but it might help.
Well, it's not going to work that way. For one thing, send-hook
patterns match against the new message, not the message you're replying
to (if you're even doing a reply). I don't think that there's really a
way to do this in 1.0, but in the development version you can do:
send-hook . unmy_hdr From:
send-hook '~f [EMAIL PROTECTED]' my_hdr From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This takes advantage of the fact that in the development version
send-hooks are done after checking for $reverse_name, and that my_hdr
will override that.
--
Aaron Schrab [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.execpc.com/~aarons/
There are no threads in a.b.p.erotica, so there's no gain in using a
threaded news reader. -- Unknown
