On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:53:32PM +0100, Jeroen Geilman wrote: > On 01/10/2013 02:05 AM, Jean-Luc Wasmer wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I've searched the mailing lists but every time the proposed solution > >involves using sender_bcc_maps (or other form of bcc'ing). > > > >The problem with adding a BCC to the incoming email is that other BCC > >headers will be dropped to the recipient of my server-side BCC rule. > > What "other BCC headers" ? > > You may be confused about RFC822: there is no BCC header, and never > has been.
You're right. What I mean is any recipient in the enveloppe that is not in the headers (and called BCC on email clients). > > >I want the equivalent of what Mutt calls Fcc, so an actual copy of the > >incoming mail, not a new recipient added to it. > > That is what always_bcc and its derivatives do. > > >The idea is to avoid having MUAs send each outgoing email twice (SMTP > >submission + IMAP copy). > > How is that related to the workings of the MTA ? > If you don't want to store your Sent mail in IMAP, tell your MUA not > to do that. > I should have added "... but still have a copy of the sent email". The double sending is inefficient can even more problematic on mobile devices. One solution that exist is to have the MUA save the email (vis IMAP) in an "Outbox" folder that is picked up and processed (sent to the local SMTP service and move to the local IMAP Sent folder). Unfortunately few clients support that. I'm trying to find a way to send the email by SMTP and retain a copy in the IMAP Sent folder.
