From: Jani Nikula Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 09:56:00 +0000 (+0200) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] cli: support Mail-Followup-To: in notmuch reply X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/gitweb.cgi?a=commitdiff_plain;h=90b28a3f8e436c10c19b9c932289179972ed679e;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] cli: support Mail-Followup-To: in notmuch reply --- diff --git a/3f/78857ce1d0e4f13305d70f0c2d4f1129ebabfd b/3f/78857ce1d0e4f13305d70f0c2d4f1129ebabfd new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6f8870503 --- /dev/null +++ b/3f/78857ce1d0e4f13305d70f0c2d4f1129ebabfd @@ -0,0 +1,104 @@ +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 76F93431FAF + for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:56:07 -0800 (PST) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.7 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled +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 ZxFUAprmtIiv for ; + Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:56:05 -0800 (PST) +Received: from mail-la0-f50.google.com (mail-la0-f50.google.com + [209.85.215.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1BAF3431FAE + for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2013 01:56:04 -0800 (PST) +Received: by mail-la0-f50.google.com with SMTP id ec20so4172838lab.9 + for ; Sun, 03 Mar 2013 01:56:03 -0800 (PST) +X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; + d=google.com; s=20120113; + h=x-received:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent + :date:message-id:mime-version:content-type:x-gm-message-state; + bh=VVEQH+O2DBeCNVT4mjypBH0x+LR2m7EBc5+1WC76nOs=; + b=Fks52RLIPPut2xZmWOpjqnisAfN1RHT9spWugq6ncL7CzRJwnaKFg7kIcD134YK/Vp + TfeAS8iZO200eAUFLDZ/8a3T4NP20mqIBydephdYlNDUsPTpN/RK2q9gceY0DqdSsxMr + ORjrqAouKe/GBCVpV1Ek0EnoU2uM/+nk8bvXMoFfcviDjrS/ajzBzVYpM8q4Ta5Q7UY0 + WMRJqn+Cfg48yNF6ghvgI6JVB4fqqZgypI5egI0RYKoG+6LF5ZbKYWinNnVxRSnnj08O + hkr/DL4Z1We2+VQo5yoeBG5Jf05gJhV4vLHilRPUeydyB/K1UAbFVLvBut7vGZPWe0am + GBBA== +X-Received: by 10.112.8.233 with SMTP id u9mr2975167lba.97.1362304563549; + Sun, 03 Mar 2013 01:56:03 -0800 (PST) +Received: from localhost (dsl-hkibrasgw4-50df51-27.dhcp.inet.fi. + [80.223.81.27]) + by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ng6sm9772632lab.2.2013.03.03.01.56.01 + (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); + Sun, 03 Mar 2013 01:56:02 -0800 (PST) +From: Jani Nikula +To: Peter Wang +Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/3] cli: support Mail-Followup-To: in notmuch reply +In-Reply-To: <20130303120745.GA4884@hili.localdomain> +References: + <5eaa3acc22ee5513bdce5ab931b7a79ade880e06.1362254104.git.jani@nikula.org> + + <20130303120745.GA4884@hili.localdomain> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+45~g53c33be (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.2.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 11:56:00 +0200 +Message-ID: <871ubwdcy7.fsf@nikula.org> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-Gm-Message-State: + ALoCoQnP2Pso/YREjtEl2YHt2QmHczZoZ4Fw8tvdig+Vf8UE5CYlV0LhyCQDX4LFUaMEJm+unSoG +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +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: Sun, 03 Mar 2013 09:56:07 -0000 + +On Sun, 03 Mar 2013, Peter Wang wrote: +> On Sat, 2 Mar 2013 21:55:21 +0200, Jani Nikula wrote: +>> Use Mail-Followup-To header to determine recipients according to +>> http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html if configured and present in the +>> message being replied to. +> +> I would like to see an option to --reply-to=list that, as far as +> possible, does the right thing. If we had that, do we need +> reply.honor_followup_to? + +If you look at http://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html, it talks about *two* +response functions, which correspond to our --reply-to=sender and +--reply-to=all. The idea is to amend reply-all to honor Mail-Followup-To +header if it is present in the mail being replied to. I don't think the +interface should be more complicated than that. + +I have added the reply.honor_followup_to configuration because, although +widely used, it's not a standard, and therefore some people might not +like to respect that. Although I'd argue if the sender of the message +has added that header, it's the sender's wish it should be respected. + +If people think our reply-all should always and unconditionally respect +Mail-Followup-To if it's present, I'd be happy to throw out the config +option. It's ugly. + +BR, +Jani. + + +PS. Please note that this is only the part that supports the +Mail-Followup-To header when replying to incoming mail that has it; +adding it to outgoing mail is beyond the scope here.