From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D951D6DE17D8 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:15:28 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.538 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.538 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.182, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-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 8J5G9toADmVw for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:15:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33BE56DE1704 for ; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 09:15:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by wmuu63 with SMTP id u63so70417570wmu.0 for ; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:24 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nikula-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type; bh=rM6Mzk2pC7xFGNYEzu8rr5wnzou1JqOnW4poyg6MLTM=; b=laL4D5LMOeIuCE6+oYYO2bSkltsPX/HZC3S49EqvyT8M425iGmCdDgSkat1aO9eYLo cyL/uiWsGZZrfc5tLCrHq13xZa6oyn6hSB2Rr/g2yMsrd7sPfjlP7KCix4m+/47ISMNd 00UYFJh/EK3p8RJPQ8r+owUja6hRNmsEvEaqrJ+S+kzvkvdc1dJaJ+bM9GwTFtcASyNF Ddo/uLOg6LBsHQSwE5VNftSPbT5EI2t8gkvu/IvJFl+sldRdw05iE+AMYz3PpMVPOwDM jZuGJH0JEiFrizsrxlhh/5Xi61q43KWWQIVcbtyDTFzeftWhR7gJxEYRhFGyM+rLG5Kk YUbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=rM6Mzk2pC7xFGNYEzu8rr5wnzou1JqOnW4poyg6MLTM=; b=EBxmISz/oYRlOpmItjSwZUMjyRgV3QBm1se7x74BV2Z7dNf0HK4L6APfBN+1SHABAU MHHL4l0EPo0dwVrFhI7ashXKGN4o9vno+Vw0W1EApVCShnkjlQzyVuw5pvdOT+5Auvt7 NqZQFKw8fTN9s//fYSHtiT9VhZ7ET7B0FgVQLprsghupJIHX6GKljTTqgjenwnnaxR8t ybOTbU63eqsUQAXSxLbv6TJG3s/8k3hIHGTzfg4V7Li1dsfuUDpNcCr/cLSpaSQsP7No /9OaJXCGTnr34QiS/7TfWxTg4pb7XPz4s/qul0ELk3gEt66cTulVdYyhiUG8bZbH6w0u OP5w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQldccKq5oUgvUr0MpeeNC3PWSqnyO9w8PChU9HnsP3EFtVX50IwIK/d28bYv9Ekr1kqhKsM X-Received: by 10.194.20.35 with SMTP id k3mr18974264wje.19.1449249324461; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (mobile-access-bcee9a-224.dhcp.inet.fi. [188.238.154.224]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o65sm4379988wmg.3.2015.12.04.09.15.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 04 Dec 2015 09:15:23 -0800 (PST) From: Jani Nikula To: Damien Cassou , David Bremner , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To In-Reply-To: <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me> References: <8737vjcx9b.fsf@cassou.me> <8737vi8l7j.fsf@zancas.localnet> <87fuzi9ng5.fsf@cassou.me> User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21~rc3+3~g80a80a8 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.4.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:14:39 +0200 Message-ID: <87twnygmps.fsf@nikula.org> 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 17:15:29 -0000 On Fri, 04 Dec 2015, Damien Cassou wrote: > 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. This was true way back when notmuch reply only knew about reply all. For --reply-to=sender, it's broken. The simplest "fix" might be diff --git a/notmuch-reply.c b/notmuch-reply.c index 6df54fc992bb..ed0f9cca5c00 100644 --- a/notmuch-reply.c +++ b/notmuch-reply.c @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply, * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in * the reply. */ - if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) { + if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message) && reply_all) { reply_to_map[0].header = "from"; reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL; } BR, Jani.