[Fwd: Re: [Evolution] Determine mail account to reply with]

[Greg Macek <it-guy mrichi com>]

Forgot to change the To: field to go back to the list... 

-----Forwarded Message-----

From: Greg Macek <it-guy mrichi com>
To: Alessio Bragadini <alessio albourne com>
Subject: Re: [Evolution] Determine mail account to reply with
Date: 12 Sep 2002 09:22:31 -0500

Didn't realize this had been discussed in the past (maybe before my days
on this list). Regardless, I would personally have no problem with the
"old way" of determining the account if Evo 1.0.8 (SuSE 7.3 build for
me) actually figured out the account to send mail from if my email isn't
in the To: or Cc: fields. However, right now the behavior for me is to
use the default account if it isn't found there, when it seems it should
then check the X-Evolution-Source header. Just my 2 cents.

On Thu, 2002-09-12 at 02:31, Alessio Bragadini wrote:
> > > > 1.1.x defaults to the X-Evolution-Source first, and then checks.
>
> > I am interested to know what "the old way" is?  If you would, explain a
> > scenario where the 1.1.x way behaves in an undesirable manner?
>
> AFAIK: in 1.0, first are checked the 'To:' and 'Cc:' fields, then the
> 'X-Evo-Source'. Different email addresses may point to the same physical
> mailbox and be still differentiated as long as you have an account
> without mailbox defined on it.
>
> So, I have alessio albourne com as my main address, but an alias
> alessio village albourne com for my project: this just redirects to the
> main mailbox. I would like to reply to these messages with my
> alessio village albourne com account (including custom signature and
> other details), which I created without an actual POP mailbox, since
> there is not.
>
> 1.0 does this just fine because it looks to the 'To:' header. I believe
> 1.1 won't because the 'X-Evo-Source' is linked to the main
> 'alessio albourne com'. In fact "virtual" accounts become half useless
> and lose much of their power.
>
> Ofcourse, I may just have misunderstood the change, but there was quite
> a discussion in the previous weeks, see
> http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/evolution/2002-July/020359.html
> (the thread is acutally split between July and August).