Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To
authorJani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>
Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:14:39 +0000 (19:14 +0200)
committerW. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Sat, 20 Aug 2016 21:50:07 +0000 (14:50 -0700)
81/737c6c6335116566d7e9acbf040d8daece5a97 [new file with mode: 0644]

diff --git a/81/737c6c6335116566d7e9acbf040d8daece5a97 b/81/737c6c6335116566d7e9acbf040d8daece5a97
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..2d7f932
--- /dev/null
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>\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 D951D6DE17D8\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  4 Dec 2015 09:15:28 -0800 (PST)\r
+X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
+X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
+X-Spam-Score: -0.538\r
+X-Spam-Level: \r
+X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182,\r
+  DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,\r
+ RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] 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 8J5G9toADmVw for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
+ Fri,  4 Dec 2015 09:15:26 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com\r
+ [74.125.82.52]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33BE56DE1704 for\r
+ <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  4 Dec 2015 09:15:26 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so70417570wmu.0\r
+ for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:24 -0800 (PST)\r
+DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
+ d=nikula-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;\r
+ h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id\r
+ :mime-version:content-type;\r
+ bh=rM6Mzk2pC7xFGNYEzu8rr5wnzou1JqOnW4poyg6MLTM=;\r
+ b=laL4D5LMOeIuCE6+oYYO2bSkltsPX/HZC3S49EqvyT8M425iGmCdDgSkat1aO9eYLo\r
+ cyL/uiWsGZZrfc5tLCrHq13xZa6oyn6hSB2Rr/g2yMsrd7sPfjlP7KCix4m+/47ISMNd\r
+ 00UYFJh/EK3p8RJPQ8r+owUja6hRNmsEvEaqrJ+S+kzvkvdc1dJaJ+bM9GwTFtcASyNF\r
+ Ddo/uLOg6LBsHQSwE5VNftSPbT5EI2t8gkvu/IvJFl+sldRdw05iE+AMYz3PpMVPOwDM\r
+ jZuGJH0JEiFrizsrxlhh/5Xi61q43KWWQIVcbtyDTFzeftWhR7gJxEYRhFGyM+rLG5Kk\r
+ YUbg==\r
+X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
+ d=1e100.net; s=20130820;\r
+ h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references\r
+ :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;\r
+ bh=rM6Mzk2pC7xFGNYEzu8rr5wnzou1JqOnW4poyg6MLTM=;\r
+ b=EBxmISz/oYRlOpmItjSwZUMjyRgV3QBm1se7x74BV2Z7dNf0HK4L6APfBN+1SHABAU\r
+ MHHL4l0EPo0dwVrFhI7ashXKGN4o9vno+Vw0W1EApVCShnkjlQzyVuw5pvdOT+5Auvt7\r
+ NqZQFKw8fTN9s//fYSHtiT9VhZ7ET7B0FgVQLprsghupJIHX6GKljTTqgjenwnnaxR8t\r
+ ybOTbU63eqsUQAXSxLbv6TJG3s/8k3hIHGTzfg4V7Li1dsfuUDpNcCr/cLSpaSQsP7No\r
+ /9OaJXCGTnr34QiS/7TfWxTg4pb7XPz4s/qul0ELk3gEt66cTulVdYyhiUG8bZbH6w0u\r
+ OP5w==\r
+X-Gm-Message-State:\r
+ ALoCoQldccKq5oUgvUr0MpeeNC3PWSqnyO9w8PChU9HnsP3EFtVX50IwIK/d28bYv9Ekr1kqhKsM\r
+X-Received: by 10.194.20.35 with SMTP id k3mr18974264wje.19.1449249324461;\r
+ Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:24 -0800 (PST)\r
+Received: from localhost (mobile-access-bcee9a-224.dhcp.inet.fi.\r
+ [188.238.154.224])\r
+ by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o65sm4379988wmg.3.2015.12.04.09.15.22\r
+ (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);\r
+ Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:23 -0800 (PST)\r
+From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>\r
+To: Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me>, David Bremner <david@tethera.net>,\r
+ notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
+Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To\r
+In-Reply-To: <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me>\r
+References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
+ <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me>\r
+User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21~rc3+3~g80a80a8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1\r
+ (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
+Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:14:39 +0200\r
+Message-ID: <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org>\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 17:15:29 -0000\r
+\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
+diff --git a/notmuch-reply.c b/notmuch-reply.c\r
+index 6df54fc992bb..ed0f9cca5c00 100644\r
+--- a/notmuch-reply.c\r
++++ b/notmuch-reply.c\r
+@@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply,\r
+      * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in\r
+      * the reply.\r
+      */\r
+-    if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) {\r
++    if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message) && reply_all) {\r
+        reply_to_map[0].header = "from";\r
+        reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL;\r
+     }\r
+\r
+\r
+BR,\r
+Jani.\r