heymanj writes:
> I know all are giddy about the release of nmh 1.2 (will be compiling
> it this weekend), but I am curious as to how to resolve the following
> situation:
>
> On my office workstation, I use a different logon id than my email
> address (as given to me by the corporation I work for). I have solved
> that by adding
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> to every one of the various *comp* files in ~/Mail/
> I've also added
>
> masquerade: draft_from
>
> to /etc/nmh/mts.conf
>
> The problem seems to occur with Bcc in that I get the following:
>
> From: "<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: undisclosed-recipients:;
> Subject: $10 Linux answering machine
> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:33:40 -0500
>
> --- Blind-Carbon-Copy
>
> To:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: $10 Linux answering machine
> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 14:33:40 -0500
>
>
> The problem is that if someone replies having received the message
> on the Bcc, it gets sent to a non-deliverable email address.
Yup. I've tripped over that myself recently. I don't know
the motivation for the current behavior, and can't think of a
good reason for it. My guess is that not many people use
draft_from so it hasn't been noticed.
> Is this a MTA issue (not MUA)?
> Am I missing something to configure? Is this standard for the
> appropriate RFCs? Can nmh honor the From:/Reply-To: on a Bcc??
It's an nmh issue, and I don't see a way to configure around
it. Dcc: doesn't behave this way, but I want to use Bcc:.
nmh would honor From: on a Bcc with the patch below to
post.c and spost.c.
It wouldn't be as simple to propagate Reply-To: through,
but I don't think it's as important. Especially because
you're setting From: and Reply-To: to the same value.
Could this patch be considered for the upcoming release,
please?
Thanks,
David
> Thanks!
>
> jerry
>
> Proud MH/nmh since 1987
>
>// Jerry Heyman | "Software is the difference between
> // Amiga Forever :-) | hardware and reality"
> \\ //[EMAIL PROTECTED] |
>\X/
Index: uip/post.c
===
RCS file: /sources/nmh/nmh/uip/post.c,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -r1.15 post.c
--- uip/post.c 6 Jan 2006 21:51:44 - 1.15
+++ uip/post.c 7 Jan 2006 19:10:43 -
@@ -1210,7 +1210,18 @@
if (msgid)
fprintf (out, "Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>\n",
(int) getpid (), (long) tclock, LocalName ());
-fprintf (out, "From: %s\n", signature);
+if (msgflags & MFRM) {
+ /* There was already a From: in the draft. Don't add one. */
+ if (!draft_from_masquerading)
+/* mts.conf didn't contain "masquerade:[...]draft_from[...]"
+ so we'll reveal the user's actual [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ address in a Sender: header (and use it as the envelope
+ From: later). */
+fprintf (out, "Sender: %s\n", from);
+}
+else
+ /* Construct a From: header. */
+ fprintf (out, "From: %s\n", signature);
if (subject)
fprintf (out, "Subject: %s", subject);
fprintf (out, "BCC:\n");
Index: uip/spost.c
===
RCS file: /sources/nmh/nmh/uip/spost.c,v
retrieving revision 1.15
diff -u -r1.15 spost.c
--- uip/spost.c 6 Jan 2006 21:51:44 - 1.15
+++ uip/spost.c 7 Jan 2006 19:10:43 -
@@ -763,7 +763,18 @@
chmod (bccfil, 0600);
fprintf (out, "Date: %s\n", dtimenow (0));
-fprintf (out, "From: %s\n", signature);
+if (msgflags & MFRM) {
+ /* There was already a From: in the draft. Don't add one. */
+ if (!draft_from_masquerading)
+/* mts.conf didn't contain "masquerade:[...]draft_from[...]"
+ so we'll reveal the user's actual [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+ address in a Sender: header (and use it as the envelope
+ From: later). */
+fprintf (out, "Sender: %s\n", from);
+}
+else
+ /* Construct a From: header. */
+ fprintf (out, "From: %s\n", signature);
if (subject)
fprintf (out, "Subject: %s", subject);
fprintf (out, "BCC:\n\n--- Blind-Carbon-Copy\n\n");
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
