crehta@tasu62.UUCP (Ran Ever-Hadani) (05/28/90)
I am corresponding with a person whose e-mail routes through a machine that adds a header of the form From: vmmail%MACHINE.lots.of.garbage%... to the message. What I get is a message with two From: headers - first the additional one I don't want, and then the original I do want. Unfortunately mush chooses the first one as the "From:" it uses. Is there a way to get mush to see the second one for purposes of display, reply etc.? What I do now is edit the message and insert ">" before the first From: . -- Ran ----------------------------------------------- Reply-To: crehta@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) Disclaimer: The above is to be attributed to me only, not to any organization. Apology: Bad English. E-mailed spelling and style corrections are welcome.
schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (05/29/90)
In article <3906@taux01.UUCP> crehta@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes: } What I get is a message with two From: headers - } first the additional one I don't want, and then the original I do } want. } } Is there a way to get mush to see the second one for purposes of } display, reply etc.? No, other than the method you've already discovered. To see how mush deals with multiple headers with the same name, use the "echo -h" command and an appropriate formatting string. In this particular case try "echo -h %f". What you should see is the contents of *both* From: headers, separated by a comma. There isn't any way to get mush to reorder the headers, so hdr_format strings %a and %n are always going to use the first one, but you will get the second From: included when you "replyall". } What I do now is edit the message and } insert ">" before the first From: . Why not just delete it entirely? -- Bart Schaefer schaefer@cse.ogi.edu
crehta@tasu62.UUCP (Ran Ever-Hadani) (05/29/90)
In article <9558@ogicse.ogi.edu> schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) writes: >In article <3906@taux01.UUCP> crehta@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes: >} What I get is a message with two From: headers - >} first the additional one I don't want, and then the original I do >} want. > There isn't any way to get mush to reorder the headers, >so hdr_format strings %a and %n are always going to use the first one, >but you will get the second From: included when you "replyall". I don't see the sense in that; even good old ucb mail knows to consider the last one. Is there any reason not to change mush so that it will always use the last one rather than the first? This makes more sense, as added headers are usually prepended to the existing ones. -- Ran ----------------------------------------------- Reply-To: crehta@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) Disclaimer: The above is to be attributed to me only, not to any organization. Apology: Bad English. E-mailed spelling and style corrections are welcome.
schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) (05/30/90)
In article <3910@taux01.UUCP> crehta@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes: } In article <9558@ogicse.ogi.edu> schaefer@ogicse.ogi.edu (Barton E. Schaefer) writes: } >In article <3906@taux01.UUCP> crehta@taux01.nsc.com (Ran Ever-Hadani) writes: } >} What I get is a message with two From: headers - } >} first the additional one I don't want, and then the original I do } >} want. } } > There isn't any way to get mush to reorder the headers, } >so hdr_format strings %a and %n are always going to use the first one, } >but you will get the second From: included when you "replyall". } } I don't see the sense in that; even good old ucb mail knows to } consider the last one. How so? I've just tried /usr/ucb/mail under DYNIX (== 4.2 BSD), Mt. Xinu 4.3 BSD, and SunOS 4.0.3. None of them sees a second From: header, even to include it in replyall. (I note that Sun's ucbMail seems to have picked up a few mush features lacking in the others, though. :-) } Is there any reason not to change mush so that it will always } use the last one rather than the first? This makes more sense, } as added headers are usually prepended to the existing ones. There are several things going on here. The first is that mush gathers all the headers having the same name into a single string when it does any operation that extracts headers having that name. This allows you, for example, to use multiple To: lines when addressing your mail, without worrying about the syntax for multi-line headers or fearing that some of your intended recipients might be missed. The string is built up in the order the headers are scanned, because that's the simplest and most obvious way to handle it; the standards do not specify a semantics for duplicated headers. The second thing going on is that once the entire string has been extracted, mush pulls the first name/address pair for use in %a and %n expansions. Again, this is quick and easy, and usually correct. So, is there any reason not to change it? Only that it would require either (1) extra work for certain special-case headers in the header display code or (2) a significant change to general header scanning code. A better question is, is there any reason *to* change it? My personal feeling is that (with the obvious exception of your problem) the more recently added header would be the one you'd *want* to get. Any one else (or even Ran) want to make a more convincing case for making such a change? Or at least hazard an opinion? -- Bart Schaefer schaefer@cse.ogi.edu