From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wmorgan-sup@masanjin.net (William Morgan) Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:52:37 -0700 Subject: [sup-talk] Attempt at reply-from hook In-Reply-To: <1244518550-sup-6361@cabinet> References: <1243898254-sup-7513@javelin> <1243980495-sup-7229@cannonball> <1243997614-sup-7485@javelin> <1244029436-sup-6141@ntdws12.chass.utoronto.ca> <1244179379-sup-6675@javelin> <1244208597-sup-4979@entry> <1244246896-sup-4529@javelin> <1244496654-sup-5759@entry> <1244498316-sup-1297@javelin> <1244502124-sup-7043@cabinet> <1244506097-sup-8895@javelin> <1244518550-sup-6361@cabinet> Message-ID: <1244565962-sup-4211@entry> Reformatted excerpts from Marc Hartstein's message of 2009-06-08: > I think that's beyond what I'd personally think of as a "configuration > twiddle", though... I tend to agree. I completely understand the use case, and I agree it's probably a common one, but this is exactly the kind of thing I want to address with hooks instead of with configuration. (Not that there's *really* a distinction between these two things in the first place.) Then when the next guy comes along and says, "I like this but I want my from address based on X instead of the label", I can also avoid having to do any work. Edward, if you want to invest time on making this particular scheme easy for users, I would be happy to include contributed hooks as part of the Sup distribution, and you can supply one that reads a simple configuration file and produces this behavior. -- William