Re: [PATCH 0/4] notmuch reply bugfix & reply to sender only

diff --git a/d7/b0383b7eb00aeaa8593c1488bca86e4567acfe b/d7/b0383b7eb00aeaa8593c1488bca86e4567acfe
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..5ae9d3f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/d7/b0383b7eb00aeaa8593c1488bca86e4567acfe
@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+Return-Path: <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0B5D429E32\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  5 Jan 2012 14:01:40 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -1.098\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5\r
+       tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,\r
+       NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=disabled\r
+Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
+       by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
+       with ESMTP id mH8Qf8aQDFjv for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+       Thu,  5 Jan 2012 14:01:40 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6])\r
+       (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))\r
+       (No client certificate requested)\r
+       by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4762D429E27\r
+       for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Thu,  5 Jan 2012 14:01:40 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40])\r
+       by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1RivNL-0003Be-Bf; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:33 +0000\r
+Received: from 94-192-233-223.zone6.bethere.co.uk ([94.192.233.223]\r
+       helo=localhost)\r
+       by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.69)\r
+       (envelope-from <m.walters@qmul.ac.uk>)\r
+       id 1RivNL-0001XE-4L; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:31 +0000\r
+From: Mark Walters <markwalters1009@gmail.com>\r
+To: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org, david@tethera.net\r
+Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] notmuch reply bugfix & reply to sender only\r
+In-Reply-To: <cover.1325794371.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+References: <cover.1325794371.git.jani@nikula.org>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.10.2+166~g228d8c0 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.3.1\r
+       (i486-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:30 +0000\r
+Message-ID: <87hb0924hx.fsf@qmul.ac.uk>\r
+MIME-Version: 1.0\r
+Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii\r
+X-Sender-Host-Address: 94.192.233.223\r
+X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record.  :)\r
+X-QM-Body-MD5: 212d3a994ef2d3a3c1a905cd9bea03bc (of first 20000 bytes)\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Score: -1.8\r
+X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: -\r
+X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to\r
+       determine if it is\r
+       spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam.\r
+       This message scored -1.8 points.\r
+       Summary of the scoring: \r
+       * -2.3 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,\r
+       *      medium trust\r
+       *      [138.37.6.40 listed in list.dnswl.org]\r
+       * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail\r
+       provider *      (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com)\r
+       * -0.0 T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay\r
+       *      domain\r
+       *  0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list\r
+X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean\r
+X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13\r
+Precedence: list\r
+List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
+       <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
+List-Unsubscribe: <http://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: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
+       <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
+X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 22:01:41 -0000\r
+\r
+\r
+Hello\r
+\r
+\r
+> Bikeshedding topic #1: How about making replying to just the sender the default\r
+> in "notmuch reply", and having --reply-all option (instead of --no-reply-all)?\r
+\r
+In id:"87pqn5cg4g.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org" cworth suggested using\r
+--reply-to=sender vs. --reply-to=all (keeping the latter the default).\r
+\r
+(This was in response to a patch set I submitted implementing a\r
+reply-to-sender option (*))\r
+\r
+> Bikeshedding topic #2: How about binding 'r' to reply to just the sender by\r
+> default, and making 'R' reply-all (instead of vice versa)?\r
+\r
+Personally I would prefer this but it is easy to customise.\r
+\r
+However, one more significant choice is what to do on reply-to-sender to\r
+an email from the user himself. My patch used the following logic: look\r
+at the reply-to, from , to, cc lines until you find a non-user address\r
+and use that line for the reply. My recollection is that this is roughly\r
+what mutt does.\r
+\r
+At least for the common "from user" cases mutt does \r
+reply-to-one : just to to: person\r
+group-reply: to to: and cc: people\r
+\r
+Best wishes\r
+\r
+Mark\r
+\r
+(*) I have a version of that patch-set which applies to master if that\r
+would be useful to anyone, and I recently started writing tests in\r
+preparation for re-submitting.\r
+\r
+\r