Re: [Nmh-workers] Implementation question: function or component for local mailbox?

[Paul Fox]

ken wrote:
 > > > As previously discussed, I've been looking at putting the "From"
 > > > address in message draft via extensions to the format language (the
 > > > existing syntax doesn't have that ability).
 > >
 > >can you expand on that? what is it that can't be done?
 > 
 > Weeeelll .... let me put it this way.  There is no function or component
 > today that corresponds to nmh's idea of what the "local mailbox" is.
 > 
 > > >
 > > > I see two possibilities as to how to implement this:
 > > >
 > > > - A new function, e.g. %(localmbox).
 > >
 > >can't this be done now, with something like "%(profile Local-Mailbox)"?
 > >(or similar -- my mh-format skilz are sketchy at best.)
 > 
 > Hm, I forgot about that.  But .... if you recall, this is what we
 > came up with in terms of "what my local mailbox is":
 > 
 > http://www.mhonarc.org/archive/html/nmh-workers/2012-02/msg00021.html
 > 
 > With %(profile Local-Mailbox) we can do the first one.  I don't
 > think we have any escapes that can do the others .... although ...
 > maybe I'm over-thinking this (which always happens).  We have %(me)
 > today.  We could easily add an escape to get "local hostname" (which
 > would be either localname from mts.conf or the output of "hostname").
 > So .... maybe we could get away with something like this:
 > 
 > From: %<(profile Local-Mailbox)%(putstr)%|%(myname) <%(me)@%(myhost)>%>

[ the agreed-on list again, for reference:
    Make the "default" email address be (in decreasing precedence order)
        - A knob in .mh_profile (Local-Mailbox ?)
        - address@hidden
        - address@hidden
]

it's completely possible that i'm misunderstanding the previous
consensus, but i sort of thought that after allowing for "a knob
in mh-profile" (which is satisfied with just the first half of what
you just suggested), the second 2nd and 3rd bullets in the list you
referenced would be handled outside the bounds of the message draft.
after all, if the user edits the draft and removes the pertinent line,
they MH still needs to provide a From: header.

in other words, once the user has been given a chance to configure
their preferred From: address, or to add it manually during composition,
then the other two fallback options are hard-coded internally.

so there would be no need for new %(myname) and %(myhost) facilities. 
i'd honestly be surprised if many MH installations rely on the GECOS
field, and its been a long time since my current hostname played any
part in my email address.

(but again, i'm probably missing something.)

paul


 > 
 > Where %(myname) would get the user's real name from either SIGNATURE or
 > the GECOS field, and %(myhost) would get the local hostname from
 > mts.conf (localname) or gethostname().  Hm, I'll have to parse ismymbox()
 > more closely to make sure that will DTRT.  I guess I was thinking that
 > having one entry point inside of nmh to create the idea of "the local
 > mailbox" might be more useful.
 > 
 > --Ken
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Nmh-workers mailing list
 > address@hidden
 > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers

=---------------------
 paul fox, address@hidden (arlington, ma, where it's 38.1 degrees)