[RCD] [Svn] [roundcube/roundcubemail] 30cc01: Use Delivered-To header as a last resort for identity selection (#1488840)

Michael Heydekamp listuser at freexp.de
Sun Dec 2 23:29:43 CET 2012

Am 01.12.2012 23:57, schrieb Michael Heydekamp:
> Am 30.11.2012 08:12, schrieb A.L.E.C:
>> On 11/29/2012 09:03 PM, Michael Heydekamp wrote:
>>> Ironically, the change quoted below doesn't help in all Roundcube mailing
>>> lists, as the Delivered-To header of Roundcube list does look like this:
>>>> Delivered-To: dev-at-lists-dot-roundcube-dot-net at lists.roundcube.net
>> Actually your message contains two Delivered-To headers, where one is my
>> address and it works for me.
> The mailing list message of my post (i.e. the one that I received back
> through the list) does contain only one Delivered-To: header - the one I
> quoted above.
>> So, does your server not add this header maybe?
> Apparently not. And why should it...? At least this isn't anything you can
> rely on.

I just realized that Exim is adding a header "Envelope-to:" instead (which
is also not an RFC standard header, AFAIK).

May I ask to support this header besides "Delivered-To:" as a last resort
as well...? Of course I can patch the source and see if it works, shall I do

But again, even this can only be a workaround, as it doesn't work for new
messages. But it would help, no doubt.

> So I would like to throw in this question again:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Wouldn't it be worth thinking of adding an option to the addressbook? I
>>> mean, this issue does not apply to mailing lists only (and there even to
>>> replies only!), but also to private and business related messages. So
>>> assigning an identity to a specific addressbook entry could really be
>>> helpful, as it would then also apply to new messages.
>>> Of course, there would still be an issue when adding more recipients to the
>>> To:/Cc:/Bcc: fields which may have different identities assigned, but then
>>> the identity assigned to the first address in the To: field shall be the one
>>> and only to win, IMO.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still think that this would be the best solution in the long run.

Michael Heydekamp
Co-Admin freexp.de

More information about the dev mailing list