Aron Griffis wrote: [Thu Jul 12 2007, 07:54:57PM EDT] > 1. reply-hooks should run inline with send-hooks instead of before > them. The only difference between reply-hooks and send-hooks > should be which message they're matching against. > > 2. send-hooks should be able to recognize when they're running on > a message that is a reply. Something better than the subject > hack.
Bob Bell pointed out to me ~Q, which according to the doc matches "messages which have been replied to". This seems to be intended for us in <limit> or <tag-pattern>. Whether intentional or inadvertent, it also seems to work for #2 above... send-hook '~Q' 'my_hdr X-Q-Status: this is a reply' send-hook '!~Q' 'my_hdr X-Q-Status: this is not a reply' Thanks Bob! > 3. send-hooks should be able to tell if reverse_name succeeded or > failed. Right now there is no way to do this short of extremely > ugly hacks (think of "reply-hook . set from=bogus") > > 4. There should be a way to run send-hooks on ALL sent messages > including bounced messages. Presently no hooks run when > a message is bounced, so you just have to get lucky with the > folder-hook settings when you hit 'b'.