Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C8FE2431FC0 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:26:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hZ2X1Qij+NKg for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:26:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f224.google.com (mail-bw0-f224.google.com [209.85.218.224]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8D23431FAE for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: by bwz24 with SMTP id 24so1775139bwz.30 for ; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:26:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:from:to:subject :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=Bkzzsslsm1ZBvuXu8+1Z95PVJj3VydaMkdg3nwseg+k=; b=eFnzhLIF0rPyS+SdyKBxy/7s4Gfqu4nBeIOk+gtOQ14Q5GR3zer8BxxPRQLj/SAsyD dS66KTueKKBIajOUna1gni52tyX9SybX3cgXB6zycuvOwat9el7NHpawfTMssWfFEzME D91ZYB9lTiaB/p5h4vDs1DWuxoKuF3SYOO4TU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; b=v2l5sMZFLm9beb5hyG+Rl0unLQexXLP7L8zDG+dORtAWadGFZQnKMxGSFk5td+eHBd 0Gapp5b2U7G4Y1c/WSCCwVo7pvHBrR4vCzaojV7aekh7j+D4RvmvOF76px5r4R5VIEhM h4Id+yE4mrxaTQ6ltP1nBWXRd0+JldilSD+Oc= Received: by 10.204.160.73 with SMTP id m9mr2494746bkx.214.1259436380083; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:26:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from kunyang (vawpc43.ethz.ch [129.132.59.11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm918225fxm.10.2009.11.28.11.26.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:26:19 -0800 (PST) Sender: Jed Brown From: Jed Brown To: Carl Worth , notmuch@notmuchmail.org In-Reply-To: <87vdgupm8w.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> References: <877htavdn1.fsf@59A2.org> <87vdgupm8w.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:26:52 +0100 Message-ID: <87638uv4ar.fsf@59A2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Subject: Re: [notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 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: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:26:21 -0000 --=-=-= Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:43 -0800, Carl Worth wrote: > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown wrote: > > 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. >=20 > Oh, I really like that. The condition there avoids breaking legitimate > uses of Reply-To, (such as the cairo lists I run, where cairo-commit@ > has no user-generated From:---just a single automated address, but has > Reply-To: set to the cairo@ list instead so that replies to committed > patches go to the right place). I'm not sure I follow (at least not when comparing to the sanitized headers shown in the online archives). Could you send me one of these headers? When mailing lists munge, do they ever just add to that field (RFC-2822 says Reply-To may contain multiple addresses)? Jed --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAksReXwACgkQU7Rz1O1Q6otceACdGZYfrUMChJ1lhe0gkPimfmsX sF0AoLFst/aHiUIDi+uXvIarwjyn+kzk =VCtV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--