Deltachat-android: Handle contacts with multiple mail addresses

[escoand]

Most of my contacts have multiple mail addresses but they are just recognized by Delta Chat if I/they send with/to the exact address the chat was started with

An other issue is Delta Chat always responses with the configured address, but I have multiple address. One for private one for business. I could ask which one to use for response.

[r10s]

We already though about this issue, but we came to the conclusion that chat:email should be 1:1 for the following reasons:

• 1:n are often old email addresses or work/private/whatever addresses:
• for old addresses: No problem, the old addresses will go down in the list sooner or later
• for work/private/whatever addresses: Often it is a good idea to keep them separated - using 1:1, you can easily decide where to reach a person
• people using multiple e-mail-addresses may use forwarding - or may not. So it would be unclear, if outgoing mails go to one address or to all
• Using such a contact in groups would be even more complicated
• KISS ;-)

[escoand]

OK, I understand this but:
A friend started a chat with me, I responded but had configured an other address.
So he could not see my response in the chat but has to use a mail client just to recognize the new messages.
What is your propose for this problem?

[r10s]

If your friend contacts you and you answer using Delta Chat, the answer will always go to the same email address. You can't configure another address.

I do not see a problem in this example.

But it may be an good example why not to use 1:n: In this case it may happen, you answer to an address that is read by the sender in the situation: Imagine you have a chat with the email-addresses [email protected] and [email protected]: You may have configured the chat to send to [email protected] - if then there comes a mail from [email protected], your answer will not be recognized by the sender.

There may be situations, where 1:n is useful, of course. But I think there are at least the same number of situations, where 1:1 is more useful and 1:n is confusing. Regarding this, I see no reason to add extra compatibility to the user interface, to the structure and to the code.

However, I'll keep the issue open for discussion.

[escoand]

I would say the reason for my issue is #53. This can be closed...