81/737c6c6335116566d7e9acbf040d8daece5a97

   1 Return-Path: <jani@nikula.org>\r
   2 X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   3 Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
   4 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])\r
   5  by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D951D6DE17D8\r
   6  for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  4 Dec 2015 09:15:28 -0800 (PST)\r
   7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org\r
   8 X-Spam-Flag: NO\r
   9 X-Spam-Score: -0.538\r
  10 X-Spam-Level: \r
  11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182,\r
  12   DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7,\r
  13  RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=disabled\r
  14 Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1])\r
  15  by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)\r
  16  with ESMTP id 8J5G9toADmVw for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;\r
  17  Fri,  4 Dec 2015 09:15:26 -0800 (PST)\r
  18 Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com\r
  19  [74.125.82.52]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33BE56DE1704 for\r
  20  <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri,  4 Dec 2015 09:15:26 -0800 (PST)\r
  21 Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so70417570wmu.0\r
  22  for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:24 -0800 (PST)\r
  23 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
  24  d=nikula-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;\r
  25  h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id\r
  26  :mime-version:content-type;\r
  27  bh=rM6Mzk2pC7xFGNYEzu8rr5wnzou1JqOnW4poyg6MLTM=;\r
  28  b=laL4D5LMOeIuCE6+oYYO2bSkltsPX/HZC3S49EqvyT8M425iGmCdDgSkat1aO9eYLo\r
  29  cyL/uiWsGZZrfc5tLCrHq13xZa6oyn6hSB2Rr/g2yMsrd7sPfjlP7KCix4m+/47ISMNd\r
  30  00UYFJh/EK3p8RJPQ8r+owUja6hRNmsEvEaqrJ+S+kzvkvdc1dJaJ+bM9GwTFtcASyNF\r
  31  Ddo/uLOg6LBsHQSwE5VNftSPbT5EI2t8gkvu/IvJFl+sldRdw05iE+AMYz3PpMVPOwDM\r
  32  jZuGJH0JEiFrizsrxlhh/5Xi61q43KWWQIVcbtyDTFzeftWhR7gJxEYRhFGyM+rLG5Kk\r
  33  YUbg==\r
  34 X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;\r
  35  d=1e100.net; s=20130820;\r
  36  h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references\r
  37  :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;\r
  38  bh=rM6Mzk2pC7xFGNYEzu8rr5wnzou1JqOnW4poyg6MLTM=;\r
  39  b=EBxmISz/oYRlOpmItjSwZUMjyRgV3QBm1se7x74BV2Z7dNf0HK4L6APfBN+1SHABAU\r
  40  MHHL4l0EPo0dwVrFhI7ashXKGN4o9vno+Vw0W1EApVCShnkjlQzyVuw5pvdOT+5Auvt7\r
  41  NqZQFKw8fTN9s//fYSHtiT9VhZ7ET7B0FgVQLprsghupJIHX6GKljTTqgjenwnnaxR8t\r
  42  ybOTbU63eqsUQAXSxLbv6TJG3s/8k3hIHGTzfg4V7Li1dsfuUDpNcCr/cLSpaSQsP7No\r
  43  /9OaJXCGTnr34QiS/7TfWxTg4pb7XPz4s/qul0ELk3gEt66cTulVdYyhiUG8bZbH6w0u\r
  44  OP5w==\r
  45 X-Gm-Message-State:\r
  46  ALoCoQldccKq5oUgvUr0MpeeNC3PWSqnyO9w8PChU9HnsP3EFtVX50IwIK/d28bYv9Ekr1kqhKsM\r
  47 X-Received: by 10.194.20.35 with SMTP id k3mr18974264wje.19.1449249324461;\r
  48  Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:24 -0800 (PST)\r
  49 Received: from localhost (mobile-access-bcee9a-224.dhcp.inet.fi.\r
  50  [188.238.154.224])\r
  51  by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o65sm4379988wmg.3.2015.12.04.09.15.22\r
  52  (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);\r
  53  Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:23 -0800 (PST)\r
  54 From: Jani Nikula <jani@nikula.org>\r
  55 To: Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me>, David Bremner <david@tethera.net>,\r
  56  notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  57 Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To\r
  58 In-Reply-To: <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me>\r
  59 References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>\r
  60  <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me>\r
  61 User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21~rc3+3~g80a80a8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1\r
  62  (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)\r
  63 Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:14:39 +0200\r
  64 Message-ID: <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org>\r
  65 MIME-Version: 1.0\r
  66 Content-Type: text/plain\r
  67 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org\r
  68 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20\r
  69 Precedence: list\r
  70 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."\r
  71  <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>\r
  72 List-Unsubscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,\r
  73  <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>\r
  74 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/>\r
  75 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>\r
  76 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>\r
  77 List-Subscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,\r
  78  <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>\r
  79 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:15:29 -0000\r
  80 \r
  81 On Fri, 04 Dec 2015, Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> wrote:\r
  82 > David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:\r
  83 >\r
  84 >> Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> writes:\r
  85 >>\r
  86 >>>                    "To" : "rmod@inria.fr",\r
  87 >>>                    "Reply-To" : "rmod@inria.fr",\r
  88 >>>                    "From" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr",\r
  89 >>>                    "Subject" : "[rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30",\r
  90 >>>                    "Date" : "Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:00:01 +0100"\r
  91 >>\r
  92 >> A quick look at the code suggests this is falling victim to the\r
  93 >> "reply-to munging" detection code, which considers a reply-to field\r
  94 >> redudant if it duplicates one of the other fields. From the source\r
  95 >>\r
  96 >>     /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad\r
  97 >>      * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html\r
  98 >>      *\r
  99 >>      * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a\r
 100 >>      * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already exists\r
 101 >>      * in either To or Cc). So in this case, we ignore the Reply-To\r
 102 >>      * field and use the From header. This ensures the original sender\r
 103 >>      * will get the reply even if not subscribed to the list. Note\r
 104 >>      * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in\r
 105 >>      * the reply.\r
 106 >>      */\r
 107 >\r
 108 >\r
 109 > The last sentence seems to contradict my example:\r
 110 >\r
 111 >     Note that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in\r
 112 >     the reply.\r
 113 >\r
 114 > Here is the reply message, and it does not contain the address in Reply-To.\r
 115 \r
 116 This was true way back when notmuch reply only knew about reply all. For\r
 117 --reply-to=sender, it's broken. The simplest "fix" might be\r
 118 \r
 119 diff --git a/notmuch-reply.c b/notmuch-reply.c\r
 120 index 6df54fc992bb..ed0f9cca5c00 100644\r
 121 --- a/notmuch-reply.c\r
 122 +++ b/notmuch-reply.c\r
 123 @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply,\r
 124       * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in\r
 125       * the reply.\r
 126       */\r
 127 -    if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) {\r
 128 +    if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message) && reply_all) {\r
 129         reply_to_map[0].header = "from";\r
 130         reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL;\r
 131      }\r
 132 \r
 133 \r
 134 BR,\r
 135 Jani.\r