From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <david@tethera.net> Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF2D66DE179E for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 04:14:29 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.323 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.323 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.228, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 qlyUsvlK5ngO for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 04:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C96F6DE1413 for <notmuch@notmuchmail.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 04:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from <david@tethera.net>) id 1a4pFn-0007EV-BS; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:14:23 -0500 Received: (nullmailer pid 6204 invoked by uid 1000); Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:14:24 -0000 From: David Bremner <david@tethera.net> To: Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me>, notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To In-Reply-To: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+7~g55fb7da (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 08:14:24 -0400 Message-ID: <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet> 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." <notmuch.notmuchmail.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://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: <https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch>, <mailto:notmuch-request@notmuchmail.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 12:14:30 -0000 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. */