Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95EB76DE173C for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:54 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.299 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.241, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.01] autolearn=disabled Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id i6WM5rrbRU0U for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from bender.ldn-fai.net (bender.ldn-fai.net [80.67.188.162]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F4276DE1704 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 08:40:49 -0800 (PST) From: Damien Cassou To: David Bremner , 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> Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 17:40:42 +0100 Message-ID: <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 16:40:54 -0000 David Bremner writes: > Damien Cassou 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. > */ The last sentence seems to contradict my example: Note that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in the reply. Here is the reply message, and it does not contain the address in Reply-To. $ notmuch reply --reply-to=sender --format=json "id:565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr" | json_pp { "reply-headers" : { "References" : "<565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr>", "Subject" : "Re: [rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30", "To" : "seaside@rmod.inria.fr", "From" : "Damien Cassou ", "In-reply-to" : "<565be5e1.X5p1I6XirRudvMa6%seaside@rmod.inria.fr>" -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill