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.
     */