[dev] "Recipient address does not match the currently selected identity"

[Chuck Hagenbuch]

Quoting Michael M Slusarz <slusarz at horde.org>:

> Quoting Chuck Hagenbuch <chuck at horde.org>:
>
>> This seems rather unfriendly. First of all the error message is  
>> confusing; even knowing the code I didn't know what it could mean.  
>> It might be okay if it was smart enough to somehow know which  
>> addresses were list addresses and which weren't, but it's not. I've  
>> seen this:
>
> Very confused by this statement.  IMP isn't smart enough to figure  
> out whether the message is a list message or not - more accurately,  
> IMP doesn't care.  It is the *user* who explicitly determines this  
> via their identity preferences.

Okay. Where did I do that?

> This recipient checking feature has *nothing* to do with list  
> addresses - it deals solely with tied addresses.  OTOH, list  
> addresses are probably the main thing tied addresses are useful for.

I'm still not sure what tied addresses are, and I'm pretty sure I  
don't have any of them - the tied addresses field of all of my  
identities is empty.

> As far as tied addresses - if you are unsure of what they are then  
> this is probably bad news on our part re: documentation since tied  
> addresses have been around for 6-7 years.  A tied address indicates  
> what identity to use when replying to a message.  It is a list of  
> From e-mail addresses that are used, at the time of replying, to  
> determine what the default identity should be.

Is there any reason that this check should ever trigger when not  
replying, then?

> The issue you have raised has to do with including the identity  
> e-mail itself in the the list of addresses for an identity.  You've  
> raised a case that seems to indicate that these e-mail addresses  
> should be excluded from this list.

Okay.

>> - in the case already outlined. I can delete my identity for  
>> core at horde.org, but going back to your explanation - I haven't set  
>> up any of my identities to be tied to anything, as far as I know.  
>> So why am I seeing this error?
>
> This still sounds like the same issue.  Obviously, if no tied  
> addresses are available, we shouldn't be doing this check so if  
> that's not happening, it is a bug.

Sounds like there's a bug, then.

-chuck