Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!spool.mu.edu!dsinc!syd
From: syd@DSI.COM (Syd Weinstein)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.elm
Subject: Re: Two question on Elm
Message-ID: <1991Feb11.141818.22074@DSI.COM>
Date: 11 Feb 91 14:18:18 GMT
References: <1991Feb11.021555.10503@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Reply-To: syd@DSI.COM
Organization: Datacomp Systems, Inc.  Huntingdon Valley, PA
Lines: 42

abrodnik@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Andrej Brodnik (Andy)) writes:
>o Is that true that you can not send mail to a file using Elm? If no, how can
>I do this, if yes would it be possible to include this thing a new version of
>Elm?
While you cannot send mail to a file, you can save a message in a file,
including an outbound one, so while it is not an option on the To:
line, it is a menu option, both for saving a message from the mailbox
and for sending a message.  One cannot send a message only to a file
however.  No such capability is on the drawing boards, not is it likely
to be.

>o The other question deals with, yes, aliases. They are more or less used to
>simplify the addresses of persons whom you often send your mail. That is ok.
>But there beside them exists automatic folder system which puts your incoming
>and outgoing mail into certain folders. If your frined has an email address
>friend@hjk.kjks.kjgk this is easy. I mean it is easy to remember his real
>username. But quite often it happens that usernames are not so simple (e.g.
>ix78yom@kjhdgkh.kjfkshjk). In this case the mail is saved in folder named
>"ix78yom" and not "friend". Does there exist a possibility to do saving in
>folder "frined" in this case? If this would be true than the change of folder
>would easier as well.
While what you ask looks easy, we have discussed it and its not so easy.
First off, friend may map to user@fqdn and that translation is rather
easy, but mail comes in with may id's and paths, and many are not the
same as user@fqdn even though they are from user@fqdn. The problem
is even worse for sitea!siteb!sitec!user where the paths can change,
and what constitutes a match (sitec!user is not unique in the uucp world)
And on received messages, which line to you use for the mapping?
'From ', 'From: ', 'Reply-To', 'Sender' (They do differ)

We decided rather than have things get mapped wrong, to punt the issue
for now. If a consensus for how to map things and how to handle conflicts
comes up, this one is open for re-discussion, perhaps in 3.0.

>Does it have any sense to try to include the above options in the source of
>version 2.3 as we have it here? Would it be possible at all? What about 2.4?
No, these are not on the table for 2.4.
-- 
=====================================================================
Sydney S. Weinstein, CDP, CCP                   Elm Coordinator
Datacomp Systems, Inc.                          Voice: (215) 947-9900
syd@DSI.COM or dsinc!syd                        FAX:   (215) 938-0235