notmuch-reply doesn't use Reply-To
Michal Sojka
sojkam1 at fel.cvut.cz
Tue Dec 29 13:54:45 PST 2015
Hi all,
On Fri, Dec 04 2015, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Dec 2015, Damien Cassou <damien at cassou.me> wrote:
>> David Bremner <david at tethera.net> writes:
>>
>>> Damien Cassou <damien at cassou.me> writes:
>>>
>>>> "To" : "rmod at inria.fr",
>>>> "Reply-To" : "rmod at inria.fr",
>>>> "From" : "seaside at 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
I don't think that this is broken for two reasons:
1. In tests/T230-reply-to-sender.sh, there is "Un-munging Reply-To"
test, which checks the same combination of headers as in Damien's
case and uses --reply-to=sender. The test passes and the reply has
To=From.
2. When replying to mailing lists using reply-to munging, current
notmuch behavior allows me to decide whether to reply 1) privately to
the mail sender (--reply-to=sender) or 2) to the mailing list
(--reply-to=all). The proposed change would make option 1) harder.
Therefore I suggest to fix this by applying the documentation patch from
the follow-up mail.
-Michal
More information about the notmuch
mailing list