Christopher Jahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with your plan is that many ISP's will not allow you
> to use another domain's SMTP server. And this is a growing
> trend, not a shrinking one.
That's true, but it's not a problem with my plan at all. What the ISPs are
doing has no bearing on what I want to do. The client is running on my
desktop machine at work. One of the smtp servers (the one for work mail) is
the company's. Obviously there's no problem sending mail through that from
the company LAN. The second mail server is my own mail server in my
apartment. I have full control over it, so I can make it allow whatever I
want. But that doesn't even really matter in this case because I'm
connecting to it through an ssh tunnel.
> And the server you need should really matter - you can set the
> "reply to" address to the account, regardless of the SMTP it's
> going through.
It does matter, though, for a couple of reasons. For one, it's not a good
idea (and I don't want to) send personal, non work-related email through the
corporate smtp servers. Second, I don't want the company's name (via
received: lines) showing up in my personal sent mail headers. So sending via
the company's mail server and setting reply-to is simply not an option. And
neither is manually changing the server each time. I don't agree that the
fact that this may not work for everyone is a good reason to not have the
feature. And I think the fact that many other mail clients implement such a
feature attests to the fact that people do have a use for it.
sean
--
Sean Harding | "Nobody ever went broke underestimating
http://www.dogcow.org/sean/ | the taste of the American public."
Address in header *is* valid | --H. L. Mencken
