1 Return-Path: <damien@bender.ldn-fai.net>
\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 95EB76DE173C
\r
6 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:54 -0800 (PST)
\r
7 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org
\r
11 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241,
\r
12 RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.01]
\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 i6WM5rrbRU0U for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>;
\r
17 Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:49 -0800 (PST)
\r
18 Received: from bender.ldn-fai.net (bender.ldn-fai.net [80.67.188.162])
\r
19 by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F4276DE1704
\r
20 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:49 -0800 (PST)
\r
21 From: Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me>
\r
22 To: David Bremner <david@tethera.net>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
23 Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To
\r
24 In-Reply-To: <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
25 References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>
\r
26 Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:40:42 +0100
\r
27 Message-ID: <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me>
\r
29 Content-Type: text/plain
\r
30 X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
\r
31 X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
\r
33 List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system."
\r
34 <notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
\r
35 List-Unsubscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
\r
36 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
\r
37 List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch/>
\r
38 List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
\r
39 List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
\r
40 List-Subscribe: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
\r
41 <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
\r
42 X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:40:54 -0000
\r
44 David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes:
\r
46 > Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> writes:
\r
48 >> "To" : "rmod@inria.fr",
\r
49 >> "Reply-To" : "rmod@inria.fr",
\r
50 >> "From" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr",
\r
51 >> "Subject" : "[rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30",
\r
52 >> "Date" : "Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:00:01 +0100"
\r
54 > A quick look at the code suggests this is falling victim to the
\r
55 > "reply-to munging" detection code, which considers a reply-to field
\r
56 > redudant if it duplicates one of the other fields. From the source
\r
58 > /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad
\r
59 > * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
\r
61 > * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a
\r
62 > * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already exists
\r
63 > * in either To or Cc). So in this case, we ignore the Reply-To
\r
64 > * field and use the From header. This ensures the original sender
\r
65 > * will get the reply even if not subscribed to the list. Note
\r
66 > * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in
\r
71 The last sentence seems to contradict my example:
\r
73 Note that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in
\r
76 Here is the reply message, and it does not contain the address in Reply-To.
\r
78 $ notmuch reply --reply-to=sender --format=json "id:565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr" | json_pp
\r
81 "References" : "<565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr>",
\r
82 "Subject" : "Re: [rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30",
\r
83 "To" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr",
\r
84 "From" : "Damien Cassou <damien.cassou@inria.fr>",
\r
85 "In-reply-to" : "<565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr>"
\r
89 http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st
\r
91 "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without
\r
92 losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill
\r