David Bremner <da...@tethera.net> writes: > Damien Cassou <dam...@cassou.me> writes: > >> "To" : "r...@inria.fr", >> "Reply-To" : "r...@inria.fr", >> "From" : "seas...@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. $ notmuch reply --reply-to=sender --format=json "id:565be5e1.x5p1i6xirrudvma6%seas...@rmod.inria.fr" | json_pp { "reply-headers" : { "References" : "<565be5e1.x5p1i6xirrudvma6%seas...@rmod.inria.fr>", "Subject" : "Re: [rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30", "To" : "seas...@rmod.inria.fr", "From" : "Damien Cassou <damien.cas...@inria.fr>", "In-reply-to" : "<565be5e1.x5p1i6xirrudvma6%seas...@rmod.inria.fr>" -- Damien Cassou http://damiencassou.seasidehosting.st "Success is the ability to go from one failure to another without losing enthusiasm." --Winston Churchill _______________________________________________ notmuch mailing list notmuch@notmuchmail.org https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch