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

diff --git a/87/8fdcc87f2ec047aa16a247cfe6f8940cb773ba b/87/8fdcc87f2ec047aa16a247cfe6f8940cb773ba
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..a55b0ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/87/8fdcc87f2ec047aa16a247cfe6f8940cb773ba
@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+Return-Path: <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\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 6B75F6DE1772\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:54:54 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.494\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.356,\r
+  RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55] 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 lwfC0uhgjIHZ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:54:51 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz (max.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.36])\r
+ by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BBC6DE1767\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:54:51 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.200.7])\r
+ by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E930A19F4524;\r
+ Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:48 +0100 (CET)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: IMAP STYX AMAVIS\r
+Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz ([192.168.200.1])\r
+ by localhost (styx.feld.cvut.cz [192.168.200.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10044)\r
+ with ESMTP id yDJf6pusg0tG; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:46 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from imap.feld.cvut.cz (imap.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.34])\r
+ by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9739219F42E4;\r
+ Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:46 +0100 (CET)\r
+Received: from wsh by steelpick.2x.cz with local (Exim 4.86)\r
+ (envelope-from <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>)\r
+ id 1aE2E9-0003y4-Q4; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:45 +0100\r
+From: Michal Sojka <sojkam1@fel.cvut.cz>\r
+To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me>,\r
+ David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To\r
+In-Reply-To: <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+ <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me> <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+30~g55c056a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:45 +0100\r
+Message-ID: <8760zgdioq.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz>\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: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:54:54 -0000\r
+\r
+Hi all,\r
+\r
+On Fri, Dec 04 2015, Jani Nikula wrote:\r
+> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015, Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> wrote:\r
+>> David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:\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
+>>\r
+>>\r
+>> The last sentence seems to contradict my example:\r
+>>\r
+>>     Note that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in\r
+>>     the reply.\r
+>>\r
+>> Here is the reply message, and it does not contain the address in Reply-To.\r
+>\r
+> This was true way back when notmuch reply only knew about reply all. For\r
+> --reply-to=sender, it's broken. The simplest "fix" might be\r
+\r
+I don't think that this is broken for two reasons:\r
+\r
+1. In tests/T230-reply-to-sender.sh, there is "Un-munging Reply-To"\r
+   test, which checks the same combination of headers as in Damien's\r
+   case and uses --reply-to=sender. The test passes and the reply has\r
+   To=From.\r
+\r
+2. When replying to mailing lists using reply-to munging, current\r
+   notmuch behavior allows me to decide whether to reply 1) privately to\r
+   the mail sender (--reply-to=sender) or 2) to the mailing list\r
+   (--reply-to=all). The proposed change would make option 1) harder.\r
+\r
+Therefore I suggest to fix this by applying the documentation patch from\r
+the follow-up mail.\r
+\r
+-Michal\r