On Sat, Oct 13, 2007 at 04:30:44PM +0100, Chris G wrote: > But as I understand it in most 'normal' MUAs if you have "one address > for several people" then it's split into separate messages at the > sender end of things and from then on is simply a separate message to > each recipient.
But in which way does that matter? The question were: Would it make sense to send confirmations from every person representating a specific role? It is a social questioning, not a technical. And the answer is a clear 'No'. > at the receiving end and not the MUA - in which case having mutt > return an acknowledgement isn't going to do what you apparently want. Right. mutt sending an acknowledgement is really not what I want, because that sounds like an automatism. But in fact it seems to me as it would be better, if I had a tool inside of mutt to ease myself the answering. > Huh? How can the postman ask you to confirm the sending? Post > doesn't work like that and neither does E-Mail in general. I post a > letter by sticking it in a letter box, I don't hand it to the postman. Right, in case of normal letters. But there are "registered mails" (i don't know whats its name in english, actually right. Its "Einschreiben" in Germany), which are delivered by the postman to the hand of the recipient, who then has to sign the receival. The receiver then gets this sign as a proof that the sending _reached_ the recipient. Offcourse it is better then the mail disposition notification, but there is no better alternative that is widely supported *and* in our process this function just works, because it is not meant to be a lawcourt-safe proof that it reached us as the recipient. Regards, Patrick
