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

Michael Heydekamp listuser at freexp.de
Mon Dec 3 00:32:50 CET 2012


Am 03.12.2012 00:15, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 02.12.2012 23:29, schrieb Michael Heydekamp:

>>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
> 
> all this headers are USELESS from the point of smtp-protocol

You're talking about headers such as "Delivered-To:" and "Envelope-to:"
when REPLYING to messages. I agree to that to a certain point, but the quote
above wasn't related to any such headers, but to NEW messages instead, where
none of these headers does exist at all anyway.

> the only one which contains the final rcpt is "Received"
> 
> Received: from barracuda.thelounge.net (unknown [91.118.73.20])
> 	by mail.thelounge.net (THELOUNGE MTA) with ESMTP id 3YF4h15Wfhz2q
> 	for <h.reindl at thelounge.net>; Mon,  3 Dec 2012 00:05:53 +0100 (CET)

Right. I wouldn't have any objection to support "Received:" as well - or
even to replace "Delivered-To:" and "Envelope-to:" (Exim) with "Received:"
(although it may be a bit harder to parse). Probably this would even be the
better solution rather than supporting this and that non-standard header.

But even this would not cover the scenario of a new message. That's why I'm
still throwing in the idea of an additional addressbook option.
-- 
Michael Heydekamp
Co-Admin freexp.de
Düsseldorf/Germany


More information about the dev mailing list