Not using subaddressing to categorize my incoming mail.
What I'm asking is for you to explain the link between
(1) address hierarchy variability, which you claim is inconvenient,
and
(2) your failure to use subaddresses, which surely is inconvenient.
You keep repeating the claim in #1, and the fact in #2. I don't see the
connection.
Many users who are faced with address hierarchy variability nevertheless
use subaddresses. What makes you different from them?
So it can put the right ones in the Reply-To and/or From headers based
on which ISP I'm sending through.
Why do you want to do that?
I know many multi-ISP users. They all stick to a single From address.
What makes you different?
And what does this have to do with subaddressing?
[ MUA retrieving messages from several mailboxes by IMAP ]
has to have the matching subaddresses to
fill in submitted From and/or Reply-To in its own separate configuration.
Why?
This is getting tiresome. Do you know what ``specific example'' means?
it's up to the POP client to
spot the subaddress and categorize the messages after downloading them.
I've seen one (experimental) POP client that does this. It doesn't care
which addresses the user controls. It simply follows the patterns
configured by the user.
In a better world, I'd have *one* subaddress configuration for both "A"
and "B",
Details! Details! Details!
Show us which addresses A supports.
Show us which addresses B supports.
Show us which addresses you'd send where.
And explain why the variability between subaddress formats in A and B is
the crucial factor preventing you from setting this up.
And my MUA's interface on
configuring and selecting among subaddresses could be improved if there
were only one format to support, as well.
Which MUA is that? Start giving names. Stop being the sort of useless
person that support technicians have nightmares about.
---Dan
Set up a new mailing list in a single command. http://pobox.com/~djb/ezmlm.html