Re: (no subject)

> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:47:46 EDT, Douglas Kline said:
> 
> > Thanks.  Unfortunately I already have that in my ~/.mh_profile.  So it must
 be
> > something else that is taking precedence over the "-nocc me".
> 
> I need the following in my .mh_profile so mh knows who "me" is so "-nocc me"
> will work:
> 
> Alternate-Mailboxes: [email protected], valdis@*, valdis


That worked.  Thanks. 


> There were recently some changes to the email system where I work 
> that broke the usefulness of "-nocc me" by causing the machine that I 
> use to send email to have a different idea of "me" than does the 
> email server.  I wonder if you're running into something like that.
> I'm not sure of all the mail server specifics, but there is a lot of 
> address rewriting going on, and there's a procmail server in the mix 
> which reports a different idea of "me" again.


That probably isn't the explanation here.  There have been such changes but not
recently and not ones that I would think would have that effect.  There are
several possible addresses for me here and that explanation would be possible
if it weren't that my address was included in the initial reply message
regardless of which address had been used for me in the message to which I was
replying.  This started when I switched from a Sun/Solaris computer to a Linux
computer.  It might be running a different version of mh/exmh.  That I don't
know.  Perhaps that is the case.

Thanks for your help.

Doug

========
Douglas M. Kline
[email protected]