Luke.Sheldrick at an0key
Jan 29, 2008, 11:37 AM
Post #12 of 30
(913 views)
Permalink
|
On 29/01/2008 13:43, "Chris Edwards" <chris[at]eng.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008, Phil Pennock wrote:
>
> | On 2008-01-26 at 17:08 +0000, Luke Sheldrick wrote:
>
> | > However to reply to groups, I have subscribed to using this method, means
> | > the mail has to come from that address. The way I am doing it, is to setup
> a
> | > new imap account in my email software. However this is getting all a bit
> | > much :P
> |
> | A whole new account, instead of delivering to a shared folder which you
> | subscribe to? Seems excessive.
>
> Just to recap, we're discussing list posting with an automatic per-list
> "send" address (outgoing mail).
>
> My understanding is Luke means "account" in the MUA sense, which, for less
> feature-laden MUAs, is probably the only way to achieve multiple "send"
> addresses. I imagine each of these "accounts" connects to the IMAP server
> with same username/passwd, but could be wrong.
Correct, all the 'accounts' are all in fact attached to the same imap
account, with the same user name / pwd, just different 'from' email
addresses.
> Either way, I understand the reasons others have given that this sort of
> thing may be best done in the MUA. As Jethro says, pine will definitely
> do this with its rules/roles features. But lots of MUAs won't, and some
> of those that do probably involve a less-than-succinct GUI. Those of us
> who prefer proper text configs, and operate a more-or-less personal mail
> server, may well feel an Exim solution is attractive...
My setup is 'almost' personal, in this context it is anyways, as use my
personally infrastructure for testing / learning and to host my own stuff.
As I often change the internal workings, i.e. Testing different platforms,
MTAs, servers... Etc it is difficult to use rule based solutions i.e. In the
mail client, or where the mail is hosted, as it's often changing.
Having said that, my edge servers (both incoming and outgoing), remain the
same, both running exim. So if I can implement the solution here, will save
me lots of time, and effort.
> I've been thinking about doing this myself, but haven't gotten round to
> working out the details. Phil - your suggestion is really helpful as a
> starting point - thanks.
>
>
> | Address rewriting, with a string expansion based on the recipient.
> | Failed expansions cause the rewrite to just be ignored. You want to do
> | this per-recipient, rather than trying to resolve rules about multiple
> | recipients in a list; however, this has the effect of "leaking" the
> | non-subaddressed email address to all recipients that you reply to, and
> | then any subsequent replies from them will include the non-subaddressed
> | form too.
The solution only need look at the TO, if the TO has/includes the 'group,
then I would want the FROM to change to whatever was set in the text file.
> I see the problem. Perhaps just as well to use the per-list address for
> direct replies too. Haven't fully thought thru all the consequences yet...
:)
> | max_rcpt = 1
> | headers_rewrite = *@an0key.co.uk
> ${lookup{$local_part@$domain}lsearch{/etc/mail/subaddress-maps/$1}{$value}fail
> }@an0key.co.uk f
> | return_path =
>
${lookup{$local_part@$domain}lsearch{/etc/mail/subaddress-maps/$1}{$value}fail>
}
>
> May not need to change the return_path - in most cases mangling the From:
> header (as used for access control by most lists) will be sufficient.
P.s. Thanks for those who have suggested things so far :)
--
## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users
## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/
## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
|
1
