Return-Path: <cworth@cworth.org>
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 3B3B0431FAE;
	Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:56:00 -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 pooGNZFLFehL; Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cworth.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED60431FC3;
	Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org
In-Reply-To: <877htavdn1.fsf@59A2.org>
References: <877htavdn1.fsf@59A2.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:43 -0800
Message-ID: <87vdgupm8w.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.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."
	<notmuch.notmuchmail.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/options/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://notmuchmail.org/pipermail/notmuch>
List-Post: <mailto:notmuch@notmuchmail.org>
List-Help: <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>,
	<mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:56:00 -0000

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org> wrote:
> First, I'm aware that such munging is A Bad Thing
>=20
>   http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Definitely.

>   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=20
> Notmuch reply produces
>=20
>   To: Sample users list <sample-users@sample.org>,
>       Sample users list <sample-users@sample.org>
>=20
> 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.

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).

=2DCarl

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLEWQf6JDdNq8qSWgRAv+BAKCS3A0yOVFWDZol5SWdMPr4yHv4LwCgoE6Z
xsrJOhWt/KbpsgyTl3czejA=
=T2rE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--