Subject: [sup-talk] question about contacts

From: [email-masked] (Ben Walton)
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:07:23 -0400

Hi All,

I've been running sup all day (and importing old folders, etc).  So
far, I really like it although I've found a few bugs [I'll submit
patches or bug reports when I find the cause].  I have a question
about the display names used in threads.  Aside from overriding the
name/alias displayed with the contact manager, is there a way to tell
sup to just 'let it be' for certain messages?

We use the RT ticketing system at work and that sees the From: header
be: "user at example.com via RT" <support at example.com>.  We have (many)
users that don't bother to include a .sig or sign emails, so this
identifier is sometimes the fastest way to determine the originator of
the mail...can I make sup leave the display name alone on a
mail-by-mail basis?

Thanks
-Ben
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Walton <bdwalton at gmail.com>

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When
many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.
Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: [email-masked] (Tyberius Prime)
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:12:48 +0200

> Hi All,
[snip]
> the mail...can I make sup leave the display name alone on a

i,

I would also be in favour of this feature (using rss2email, same problem,
and of course the names imported from my 50k of emails are just weird...
One of my own addresses shows up as
"_Anna3 (by way of Tyberius Prime <tyberius_prime at ...> <... at mail.com>"!

But I'm also interested behind the rationale to "unify" sender names like
that (maybe there's a good reason that the both of us are missing)!

So long,
Tyberius Prime

---

From: [email-masked] (William Morgan)
Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 18:02:20 -0700

Reformatted excerpts from Tyberius Prime's message of 2008-04-30:
> But I'm also interested behind the rationale to "unify" sender names
> like that (maybe there's a good reason that the both of us are
> missing)!

No, there was no good reason. I thought it was clever but didn't realize
what the consequences would be when I did it. I think things are now in
a state where removing all that stuff wouldn't be too hard, and I've
been meaning to do it for quite some time, just haven't gotten around to
it.
-- 
William <wmorgan-sup at masanjin.net>