On Feb 11, 2004, at 3:45 PM, Fred Viles wrote:
> ACK! That won't do it, it won't add the new Reply-To: unless there
> already is one. You can't avoid nested conditions. This time I
> *did* test first, hopefully avoiding further embarrassment:
>
> headers_add = ${if match {$header_list-post:} {\<mailto:(.*)\>} \
> {${if def:header_reply-to: \
> {X-Orig-reply-to: $header_reply-to:\nReply-To: <$1>} \
> {Reply-To: <$1>} }} \
> {} }
This is working, although I don't completely understand how to write it
from scratch. I have vague recollections of sendmail seeming this
foreign to me at one time as well.
FWIW, my final entry in the routers looks like this:
# If both Reply-to and List-Post exist, copy original Reply-To
# If List-Post exists, generate Reply-To from it
headers_add = ${if match {$header_list-post:} {\<mailto:(.*)\>} \
{${if def:header_reply-to: \
{X-Orig-reply-to: $header_reply-to:\nReply-To: <$1>} \
{Reply-To: <$1>} }} \
{} }
# If both Reply-to and List-Post exist, remove original Reply-To
headers_remove = ${if and { \
{def:header_reply-to:} {def:header_list-post:}\
} {reply-to} fail }
Now, just to take this to another degree...
I have this set up on my home network where I'm the only one getting
list email. I'd like to be able to specify this on a per user basis if
I were to be in a larger environment, or my girlfriend actually started
subscribing to a few mailing lists and wanted the list's default
behavior. Can this be implemented per user?
-Michael
---------------------------------------
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they
are free.
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
