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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from Ben Walton''s message of Wed Apr 30 02:07:23 +0200 2008:> Hi All, >[snip]> > 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 > -Beni, 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
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>