BIS 2.1 Send From Gmail Issue

[smitty9999]

When I send from gmail I want the From address to be something different from my gmail address. What I get is:

from: xxx@<hidden> on Behalf of xxx@<hidden>

Anybody know how to correct this?

[byron]

i'm not sure i fully understand what you're asking...

1. when you say "when i send from gmail" are you referencing sending email from www.gmail.com or using the gmail account set up on your blackberry?

2. are you saying that it is showing the "on behalf of" when sending or thats what you want it to say?

[smitty9999]

I'm sending email from my BB using the gmail account. When the user gets the email it says From: xxx@<hidden> on Behalf of abc@<hidden>

I just want it to say that it's from me (abc@<hidden>)

[byron]

so why are you even using gmail? why not just set it up as abc@<hidden>. what configuration did you change to make it appear like this, because i have my gmail set up in my BIS account and it does not do that. did you change the reply to address to something else (abc@<hidden>)?

[smitty9999]

Yes, I changed the reply to address. I'm pushing my work email to my bb via gmail.

[lmlloyd]

I'm sending email from my BB using the gmail account. When the user gets the email it says From: xxx@<hidden> on Behalf of abc@<hidden>

I just want it to say that it's from me (abc@<hidden>)

I think this is just an inevitable consequence of forwarding an address through your gmail account. Mine does it too, and I don't see a way to change it. If there is a way, I would like to know what it is.

I will point out though that how that header appears depends on the email client the recipient is using. For example, what you are describing is how it looks in Outlook. In Thunderbird what you get is From: abc@<hidden> Sender: xxx@<hidden>

it is a minor issue, but it does look a little better in some programs.

[byron]

do you have a carrier.blackberry.net account (ie someuser@<hidden>)? i used to do something similar to what you're talking about with my carrier email address and it didn't do what you're saying.... so maybe those kind of accounts are treated differently. however, it does appear that anything sent through RIM's servers automatically puts the "reply-to" field in the email header... even if the reply to field is not set. seems redundant if you ask me, but oh well.

[lmlloyd]

Yeah, the provided address looks correct in the header when you set a different address for the account. The problem (for me at least) is then that the mail going to that address is just going to the BlackBerry, and not being archived anywhere. On my mail server, forwarders are just aliases that redirect the mail, not store them in a box. So if I bounce it right to the tmo.blackberry.net address, I never get a copy of that in my POP box. By routing it through Gmail, I get instant push now, and a copy over POP.

As a strange added advantage, at least right now, is my testing seems to show the Gmail integration actually being faster than the direct email address provided by the carrier.

[Steve]

I bit the bullet and moved from BIS 1.8 to 2.0/2.1 this morning. I had my gmail forwarded to my 1.8 BIS account and this worked well.

So I was also trying to take advantage of gmail integration and set my reply-to my previously known alias e-mail address (it is forwarded by my ISP to gmail, then BB and POP it down to Outlook later). I'd rather set gmail as the default message service on the BB settings and access the icon on the BB, then hide the carrier.blackberry.net email icon.

However, same as above posters; the gmail address is showing up on recipents' email headers "on behalf of" my alias address. I'd rather it didn't do that and it kinda sucks. I suppose I could add a sig saying I give up and am migrating from my alias to said gmail (I'm sure that's what the Google folks would prefer).

The carrier account uses the alias in reply-to cleanly, so I may set it as the default message service on the handheld.

Steve

[jibi]

Google is adhering to RFC standards, and various mail clients that are reading these messages are doing the same. I doubt Google would let go of these standards, given their fairly 'geeky' nature.