From: Michal Sojka Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:54:45 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=4241231226d1c19dc8b6a5623858a517fae9a366;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To --- diff --git a/87/8fdcc87f2ec047aa16a247cfe6f8940cb773ba b/87/8fdcc87f2ec047aa16a247cfe6f8940cb773ba new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a55b0ce08 --- /dev/null +++ b/87/8fdcc87f2ec047aa16a247cfe6f8940cb773ba @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B75F6DE1772 + for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:54:54 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -1.494 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.494 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.356, + RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55] autolearn=disabled +Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id lwfC0uhgjIHZ for ; + Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:54:51 -0800 (PST) +Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz (max.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.36]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82BBC6DE1767 + for ; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 13:54:51 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (unknown [192.168.200.7]) + by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id E930A19F4524; + Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:48 +0100 (CET) +X-Virus-Scanned: IMAP STYX AMAVIS +Received: from max.feld.cvut.cz ([192.168.200.1]) + by localhost (styx.feld.cvut.cz [192.168.200.7]) (amavisd-new, port 10044) + with ESMTP id yDJf6pusg0tG; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:46 +0100 (CET) +Received: from imap.feld.cvut.cz (imap.feld.cvut.cz [147.32.192.34]) + by max.feld.cvut.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9739219F42E4; + Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:46 +0100 (CET) +Received: from wsh by steelpick.2x.cz with local (Exim 4.86) + (envelope-from ) + id 1aE2E9-0003y4-Q4; Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:45 +0100 +From: Michal Sojka +To: Jani Nikula , Damien Cassou , + David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To +In-Reply-To: <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org> +References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet> + <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me> <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+30~g55c056a (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 22:54:45 +0100 +Message-ID: <8760zgdioq.fsf@steelpick.2x.cz> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:54:54 -0000 + +Hi all, + +On Fri, Dec 04 2015, Jani Nikula wrote: +> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015, Damien Cassou wrote: +>> David Bremner writes: +>> +>>> Damien Cassou writes: +>>> +>>>> "To" : "rmod@inria.fr", +>>>> "Reply-To" : "rmod@inria.fr", +>>>> "From" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr", +>>>> "Subject" : "[rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30", +>>>> "Date" : "Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:00:01 +0100" +>>> +>>> A quick look at the code suggests this is falling victim to the +>>> "reply-to munging" detection code, which considers a reply-to field +>>> redudant if it duplicates one of the other fields. From the source +>>> +>>> /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad +>>> * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/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. +>>> */ +>> +>> +>> The last sentence seems to contradict my example: +>> +>> Note that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in +>> the reply. +>> +>> Here is the reply message, and it does not contain the address in Reply-To. +> +> This was true way back when notmuch reply only knew about reply all. For +> --reply-to=sender, it's broken. The simplest "fix" might be + +I don't think that this is broken for two reasons: + +1. In tests/T230-reply-to-sender.sh, there is "Un-munging Reply-To" + test, which checks the same combination of headers as in Damien's + case and uses --reply-to=sender. The test passes and the reply has + To=From. + +2. When replying to mailing lists using reply-to munging, current + notmuch behavior allows me to decide whether to reply 1) privately to + the mail sender (--reply-to=sender) or 2) to the mailing list + (--reply-to=all). The proposed change would make option 1) harder. + +Therefore I suggest to fix this by applying the documentation patch from +the follow-up mail. + +-Michal