Aron Griffis wrote: [Mon Jul 09 2007, 05:12:41PM EDT]
> As far as I can tell, there's no way to determine in a send-hook if
> the message is a reply. Is that right?
I'll explain a bit more what I'm trying to accomplish.
I want to send mails with my From address determined by the following
algorithm:
1. reverse_name if possible
2. otherwise, depending on the recipients
Here is a solution to this problem. Note that mutt's priority order
for setting From is:
1. set by my_hdr
2. set by reverse_name
3. $from
--
# Current mutt
alternates '(^|[-<, ])(aron|agriffis|aron.griffis)@'
set from="Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" # default needed for (b)ounce
set reverse_name=yes
# Recipient-based hooks; setting $from isn't effective here
send-hook '~C @foo.org' 'my_hdr From: Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
send-hook '~C @work1.com''my_hdr From: Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
send-hook '~C @partner1.com' 'my_hdr From: Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
send-hook '~C @work2.com''my_hdr From: Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>'
# After recipient-based hooks, try to determine if the message is
# a reply for which reverse_name succeeded. The best we can do is
# look at the subject and hope this is definitive. In that case, kill
# the custom header in favor of reverse_name.
send-hook '~s "^Re:"' unmy_hdr From
--
# Mutt with patch http://article.gmane.org/gmane.mail.mutt.devel/14042
alternates '(^|[-<, ])(aron|agriffis|aron.griffis)@'
set from="Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" # default needed for (b)ounce
set reverse_name=yes
# Recipient-based hooks
send-hook '~C @foo.org' 'set from="Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"'
send-hook '~C @work1.com''set from="Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"'
send-hook '~C @partner1.com' 'set from="Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"'
send-hook '~C @work2.com''set from="Aron Griffis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"'
--
Frankly, I'm of two minds regarding the patch-based solution.
PRO: The ~s "^Re:" send-hook is hackish and best avoided. It could
also be avoided with the q-pattern patch but that met zero
feedback last time I posted it. http://n01se.net/paste/850
PRO: Modifying $from is advantageous because it affects the envelope
sender as well as the From: header. This is important when
sending mail from multiple accounts using a single mutt instance.
CON: Modifying $from will affect messages sent after the current one,
including *bounced* messages. To counter this, you'll find
a pretty serious hack. There are three ways to return to the
index from the compose menu. Either you send the message, abort
it, or postpone it.
macro compose P ' set ...'
macro compose q ' set ...'
macro compose y ' set ...'
...and of course it's worse than that. If you want different
settings for different folders, it gets deep quick. Full details
at http://n01se.net/agriffis/skel.hg/?file/tip/muttrc.in
Oh well. Now that I've written all this, I'm not certain it's
anything but a rant about my frustration trying to find an elegant
solution to a seemingly simple problem in mutt. Probably what's
needed to alleviate this frustration is:
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.
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'.
Is anybody else frustrated by these shortcomings or is it just me?
Did anybody really read this entire message? :-)
Aron
