From: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
To: Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org>
In-Reply-To: <1259450376-24523-2-git-send-email-jed@59A2.org>
References: <87r5ripfy2.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
	<1259450376-24523-1-git-send-email-jed@59A2.org>
	<1259450376-24523-2-git-send-email-jed@59A2.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:54:20 -0800
Message-ID: <87k4uspvr7.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH 2/2] notmuch-reply.c: Handle munged `Reply-To'
	headers.
Precedence: list

--=-=-=
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 00:19:36 +0100, Jed Brown <jed@59A2.org> wrote:
> Some mailing lists engage in the evil practice of changing the Reply-To
> header so that replies from all mailers go to the list by default, at
> the expense of not responding to the person who actually sent the
> message.  When this is detected, we reply to `From' and remove the
> duplicate response to the mailing list.  Consider a reply to the
> following message.

Thanks for the patch, Jed!

I've gone ahead and pushed this out, (along with some cleanups/fixes).

I augmented the notmuch test suite to actually test this case, (and the
related case of honoring Reply-To for a non-munged message). And I'm
glad I did because that turned up a bug in the patch, (using =3D=3D instead
of !=3D for the return value of strcasestr resulted in *all* messages with
a Reply-To header being considered as munged).

Here's one cleanup I made which you might find interesting as a style
issue (where I prefer naming a function based on what it *does* rather
than on what it's being *used* for):

commit d111c720bad53f98edba958aa605e857036a2bc8
Author: Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>
Date:   Thu Feb 4 12:39:11 2010 -0800

    notmuch reply: Rename the mailing_list_munged_reply_to function
=20=20=20=20
    This function detects whether the address in the Reply-To header
    already appears in either To or Cc. So give it a name that reflects
    what it does (reply_to_header_is_redundant) rather than the old name
    which described one possible use of the function, (as a simple
    heuristic for detecting whether a mailing list had applied reply-to
    munging).

=2DCarl

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLazP86JDdNq8qSWgRAi40AJ9A7iyLK9A2tCOgnkAgQohj/kyU8wCgpfX6
IStxgD+IRQFVkLiQM6ETD8s=
=RQHL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--