Re: Gnus Multiple Roles

[bvraghav@iitk.ac.in (B.V. Raghav)]

Jeffrey DeLeo <JeffreyDeLeo@gmail.com> writes:

> With posting styles, you can specify things like which email address to
> use, Organization, etc for a specific group, or topic. On that group or
> topic in gnus, type "G c", which runs the command "gnus-group-customize".
>
> Look for "Posting style", you can insert different things like address,
> Organization, etc there.
>
>

Posting styles do allow me to change all the headers. What I actually
want to do is use a different smtp server all together. For example,
when I reply to a mail from bvr@abc.tld, I want to use the server
smtp.abc.tld, and on the other hand when I reply to a mail from
bvr@xyz.tld, i want to use the server smtp.xyz.tld

Here is the example posting style:

(setq gnus-posting-styles
      '((".*"
         (name "B.V. Raghav")
         (address "bvraghav@abc.tld")
         (organization "Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur")
         (signature-file "~/.signature.gnus")
         ("Gcc" "INBOX.Sent")
         )
        ("^\\(To\\|C[Cc]\\):.*bvraghav@xyz.tld")
         (name "B.V. Raghav")
         (address "bvraghav@xyz.tld")
         (organization "XYZ P Ltd")
         (signature-file "~/signature.xyz")
         ("Gcc" "nnimap+xyz:INBOX.Sent")
         (("X-Message-SMTP-Method" "smtp smtp.xyz.tld 587")
         )))

This provides me all the effect that I want, namely:
* The message is addressed from the specific email address
* I can even customize the "Reply-To" header
* There is a copy in my IMAP

BUT, there is a catch,

Received: from think.bvr.lan (unknown [172.20.188.59])
	(Authenticated sender: bvraghav)
	by smtp.abc.tld (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 2511248
	for <addressed@somedomain.tld>; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:05:12 +0530 (IST)

This header, nor any of the other subsequent or antecedent server
signatures in the header contain a trace of "xyz.tld".

1. I think that should qualify enough for spamming, with some
   servers. (Although I am actually not) 
2. At least this is a reason enough for not inboxing at times.
3. Even otherwise, is this not called imposting?

-- 
(B.V. Raghav)