David Bremner <[email protected]> writes:
> 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.
> */
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%[email protected]" | json_pp
{
"reply-headers" : {
"References" : "<565be5e1.x5p1i6xirrudvma6%[email protected]>",
"Subject" : "Re: [rmod] [Mm10s] 2015-11-30",
"To" : "[email protected]",
"From" : "Damien Cassou <[email protected]>",
"In-reply-to" : "<565be5e1.x5p1i6xirrudvma6%[email protected]>"
--
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
[email protected]
https://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch
