On Fri, Dec 04 2015, David Bremner <[email protected]> wrote: > Damien Cassou <[email protected]> writes: > >> "To" : "[email protected]", >> "Reply-To" : "[email protected]", >> "From" : "[email protected]", >> "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. > */
For anyone who did that feature, Thank You ! :D Tomi _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list [email protected] https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
