From ddeb9d3ee6630fb69a37ae7fe88bbecc391fc2d7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Damien Cassou Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2015 17:40:42 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To --- 89/df29d9d22574bc115e7d0673f0c98c69aa58c4 | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 92 insertions(+) create mode 100644 89/df29d9d22574bc115e7d0673f0c98c69aa58c4 diff --git a/89/df29d9d22574bc115e7d0673f0c98c69aa58c4 b/89/df29d9d22574bc115e7d0673f0c98c69aa58c4 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3f807ddfe --- /dev/null +++ b/89/df29d9d22574bc115e7d0673f0c98c69aa58c4 @@ -0,0 +1,92 @@ +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 95EB76DE173C + for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:54 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.299 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, + RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.01] + 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 i6WM5rrbRU0U for ; + Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:49 -0800 (PST) +Received: from bender.ldn-fai.net (bender.ldn-fai.net [80.67.188.162]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F4276DE1704 + for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:49 -0800 (PST) +From: Damien Cassou +To: David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To +In-Reply-To: <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet> +References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet> +Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:40:42 +0100 +Message-ID: <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me> +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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:40:54 -0000 + +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. + + $ notmuch reply --reply-to=sender --format=json "id:565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr" | json_pp + { + "reply-headers" : { + "References" : "<565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr>", + "Subject" : "Re: [rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30", + "To" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr", + "From" : "Damien Cassou ", + "In-reply-to" : "<565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr>" + +-- +Damien Cassou +http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st + +"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without +losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill -- 2.26.2