Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To

diff --git a/d4/041924a0fe842e65f5fa9b35a24bfdd5e62d25 b/d4/041924a0fe842e65f5fa9b35a24bfdd5e62d25
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..c95ebab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/d4/041924a0fe842e65f5fa9b35a24bfdd5e62d25
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+Return-Path: <david@tethera.net>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2D66DE179E\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  4 Dec 2015 04:14:29 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.323\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228,\r
+  RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+ by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+ with ESMTP id qlyUsvlK5ngO for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Fri,  4 Dec 2015 04:14:27 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C96F6DE1413\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  4 Dec 2015 04:14:27 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84)\r
+ (envelope-from <david@tethera.net>)\r
+ id 1a4pFn-0007EV-BS; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:14:23 -0500\r
+Received: (nullmailer pid 6204 invoked by uid 1000);\r
+ Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:14:24 -0000\r
+From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>\r
+To: Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To\r
+In-Reply-To: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me>\r
+References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+7~g55fb7da (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:14:24 -0400\r
+Message-ID: <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+ <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
+List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/>\r
+List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
+List-Subscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+ <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:14:30 -0000\r
+\r
+Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> writes:\r
+\r
+>                    "To" : "rmod@inria.fr",\r
+>                    "Reply-To" : "rmod@inria.fr",\r
+>                    "From" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr",\r
+>                    "Subject" : "[rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30",\r
+>                    "Date" : "Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:00:01 +0100"\r
+\r
+A quick look at the code suggests this is falling victim to the\r
+"reply-to munging" detection code, which considers a reply-to field\r
+redudant if it duplicates one of the other fields. From the source\r
+\r
+    /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad\r
+     * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html\r
+     *\r
+     * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a\r
+     * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already exists\r
+     * in either To or Cc). So in this case, we ignore the Reply-To\r
+     * field and use the From header. This ensures the original sender\r
+     * will get the reply even if not subscribed to the list. Note\r
+     * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in\r
+     * the reply.\r
+     */\r