* in either the 'To' or 'Cc' header of the message?
*/
static int
-reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message)
+reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message, const char *reply_to)
{
- const char *reply_to, *to, *cc, *addr;
+ const char *to, *cc, *addr;
InternetAddressList *list;
InternetAddress *address;
InternetAddressMailbox *mailbox;
- reply_to = notmuch_message_get_header (message, "reply-to");
- if (reply_to == NULL || *reply_to == '\0')
- return 0;
-
list = internet_address_list_parse_string (reply_to);
if (internet_address_list_length (list) != 1)
return 0;
}
+static const char *get_sender(notmuch_message_t *message)
+{
+ const char *reply_to;
+
+ reply_to = notmuch_message_get_header (message, "reply-to");
+ if (reply_to && *reply_to) {
+ /*
+ * Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it
+ * being A Bad Thing, see
+ * http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html
+ *
+ * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a
+ * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already
+ * exists in either To or Cc). So in this case, we ignore the
+ * Reply-To field and use the From header. This ensures the
+ * original sender will get the reply even if not subscribed
+ * to the list. Note that the address in the Reply-To header
+ * will always appear in the reply if reply_all is true.
+ */
+ if (! reply_to_header_is_redundant (message, reply_to))
+ return reply_to;
+ }
+
+ return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "from");
+}
+
+static const char *get_to(notmuch_message_t *message)
+{
+ return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "to");
+}
+
+static const char *get_cc(notmuch_message_t *message)
+{
+ return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "cc");
+}
+
+static const char *get_bcc(notmuch_message_t *message)
+{
+ return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "bcc");
+}
+
/* Augment the recipients of 'reply' from the "Reply-to:", "From:",
* "To:", "Cc:", and "Bcc:" headers of 'message'.
*
notmuch_bool_t reply_all)
{
struct {
- const char *header;
- const char *fallback;
+ const char * (*get_header)(notmuch_message_t *message);
GMimeRecipientType recipient_type;
} reply_to_map[] = {
- { "reply-to", "from", GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO },
- { "to", NULL, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO },
- { "cc", NULL, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_CC },
- { "bcc", NULL, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_BCC }
+ { get_sender, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO },
+ { get_to, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO },
+ { get_cc, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_CC },
+ { get_bcc, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_BCC },
};
const char *from_addr = NULL;
unsigned int i;
unsigned int n = 0;
- /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad
- * Thing, see http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/reply-to-harmful.html
- *
- * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a
- * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already exists
- * in either To or Cc). So in this case, we ignore the Reply-To
- * field and use the From header. This ensures the original sender
- * will get the reply even if not subscribed to the list. Note
- * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in
- * the reply if reply_all is true.
- */
- if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) {
- reply_to_map[0].header = "from";
- reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL;
- }
-
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (reply_to_map); i++) {
const char *recipients;
- recipients = notmuch_message_get_header (message,
- reply_to_map[i].header);
- if ((recipients == NULL || recipients[0] == '\0') && reply_to_map[i].fallback)
- recipients = notmuch_message_get_header (message,
- reply_to_map[i].fallback);
+ recipients = reply_to_map[i].get_header (message);
n += scan_address_string (recipients, config, reply,
reply_to_map[i].recipient_type, &from_addr);