From: Tomi Ollila <tomi.ollila@iki.fi>
To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To
In-Reply-To: <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>
References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet>
User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+32~g73439f8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.3.1
 (x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu)
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:06:11 +0200
Message-ID: <m28u5a1cf0.fsf@guru.guru-group.fi>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: list

On Fri, Dec 04 2015, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:

> Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> writes:
>
>>                    "To" : "rmod@inria.fr",
>>                    "Reply-To" : "rmod@inria.fr",
>>                    "From" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr",
>>                    "Subject" : "[rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30",
>>                    "Date" : "Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:00:01 +0100"
>
> A quick look at the code suggests this is falling victim to the
> "reply-to munging" detection code, which considers a reply-to field
> redudant if it duplicates one of the other fields. From the source
>
>     /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad
>      * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
>      *
>      * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a
>      * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already exists
>      * in either To or Cc). So in this case, we ignore the Reply-To
>      * field and use the From header. This ensures the original sender
>      * will get the reply even if not subscribed to the list. Note
>      * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in
>      * the reply.
>      */

For anyone who did that feature, Thank You ! :D

Tomi