DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=sender:from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type;
	b=r/nyAP+kBzbOj5x5KNdJ8E4GHp3ulT+TQe/6uXcSzcYmtLV5ORiyc4BShXmVyHyaxH
	PhMo092+VePu7bCG0g51VDOYH8mOIzU5teD+kAUQ09krShhAirZukAMvSFwMRTsnSjuH
	nx3CF+IVnbfQos+2zSzk7K50qNEPaW1PJiGqU=
Sender: Jed Brown <five9a2@gmail.com>
From: Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org>
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100
Message-ID: <877htavdn1.fsf@59A2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Subject: [notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

First, I'm aware that such munging is A Bad Thing

  http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

but a lot of lists do it anyway (mostly to work around widely used
mailers with lame defaults).  After munging, we get headers looking like
this

  From: Some User <some.user@example.com>
  To: Sample users list <sample-users@sample.org>
  Reply-To: Sample users list <sample-users@sample.org>
=20=20
Notmuch reply produces

  To: Sample users list <sample-users@sample.org>,
      Sample users list <sample-users@sample.org>

Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.

Jed

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAksRSjIACgkQU7Rz1O1Q6ovzkACeLpDvMMQlE/iTEHym4QERgIr3
a9UAn0gzV7Ll8GFran+vpfcZngsePj1j
=50e2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--