From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: gsf@fruct.us (Gabriel Sean Farrell)
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 02:50:12 -0500
Subject: [sup-talk] return-path
In-Reply-To: <1201233750-sup-2616@south>
References: <20080123211318.GB31529@manheim.library.drexel.edu>
	<1201125726-sup-1297@south>
	<20080123224712.GB32356@manheim.library.drexel.edu>
	<1201233750-sup-2616@south>
Message-ID: <1201246425-sup-9409@magnum>

Excerpts from William Morgan's message of Thu Jan 24 23:03:58 -0500 2008:
> I don't think so... you can apply the patch below and see exactly what
> Sup is sending sendmail. In my case, that header is intact. So it must
> be getting overwritten somewhere else in the system.
> 
> There's some crazy interaction between this header, the From: and
> Sender: headers, and the -f option of sendmail. Maybe you should use a
> -f with sendmail (in your ~/.sup/config.yaml file)? Did you have a
> particular way of calling sendmail with Mutt?

Right you are about the crazy interaction.  It's not clear to me how
Mutt is calling sendmail, but now I'm guessing all that the "set
envelope_from=yes" does in mutt is add the -f flag followed by one's
"from" email to the call to sendmail.  

If I do that in my ~/.sup/config.yaml, the return-path is set
correctly (at least, it was in my tests.  How does this message
look?!).  In fact, I believe it's set correctly even if I don't set
the return-path in ~/.sup/hooks/edit-before.rb or patch lib/mbox.rb.
In other words, all that needs to be done to fix my problem is the
addition of -f <email> to the sendmail call.  Maybe it could be an
option in the initial account setup?

Oh, and thanks for all the work you're doing on sup, William.  Really
great stuff.