[notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Jed Brown]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:43 -0800, Carl Worth  wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown  wrote:
> > Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
> > unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
> > this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.
> 
> Oh, I really like that. The condition there avoids breaking legitimate
> uses of Reply-To, (such as the cairo lists I run, where cairo-commit@
> has no user-generated From:---just a single automated address, but has
> Reply-To: set to the cairo@ list instead so that replies to committed
> patches go to the right place).

I'm not sure I follow (at least not when comparing to the sanitized
headers shown in the online archives).  Could you send me one of these
headers?

When mailing lists munge, do they ever just add to that field (RFC-2822
says Reply-To may contain multiple addresses)?

Jed
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Jed Brown]

First, I'm aware that such munging is A Bad Thing

  http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

but a lot of lists do it anyway (mostly to work around widely used
mailers with lame defaults).  After munging, we get headers looking like
this

  From: Some User 
  To: Sample users list 
  Reply-To: Sample users list 

Notmuch reply produces

  To: Sample users list ,
  Sample users list 

Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.

Jed
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

Re: [notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Carl Worth]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:26:52 +0100, Jed Brown  wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow (at least not when comparing to the sanitized
> headers shown in the online archives).  Could you send me one of these
> headers?

No problem. See attached.

The mail on cairo-commit has a From: address that is auto-generated by
the username of the committer, (so is likely not even valid for a
reply). The To: address (cairo-com...@cairographics.org) also does not
accept any mail. So a reply to either of those addresses will not be
useful.

Instead, the mail sets a Reply-To: to the general
ca...@cairographics.org list.

So that's not your typical Reply-to munging on a mailing list, (in this
case, there's no incoming mail where the munging could break a user's
manually set Reply-To header).

And it sounds like your idea would not break the replying to this list,
(replies would still be directed to cairo@ which is what I want). If I
understand correctly, it would still also reply to cairo-commit@ which
will end up bouncing, until we add something for "reply to sender only".
And that's the same behavior I've had with any MUA and this list.

> When mailing lists munge, do they ever just add to that field (RFC-2822
> says Reply-To may contain multiple addresses)?

I have no idea about that myself.

-Carl



pgpRI189bAPjV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Return-path: 
Envelope-to: cwo...@localhost
Delivery-date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:53 -0800
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=yoom.home.cworth.org)
by yoom.home.cworth.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1NE0Hk-0008Lf-W7
for cwo...@localhost; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:53 -0800
X-Original-To: cwo...@cworth.org
Delivered-To: cwo...@cworth.org
Received: from olra.theworths.org [82.165.184.25]
by yoom.home.cworth.org with IMAP (fetchmail-6.3.9-rc2)
for  (single-drop); Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:52 -0800 
(PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A35EC431FBC
for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.93
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.93 tagged_above=-999 required=2 tests=[AWL=-0.931,
BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] autolearn=ham
Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 58abAJlDmp9X for ;
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177])
by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED626431FAE
for ; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC2099F6BA;
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: cairo-com...@cairographics.org
Delivered-To: cairo-com...@cairographics.org
Received: from kemper.freedesktop.org (kemper.freedesktop.org
[131.252.210.178])
by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36C809F643
for ;
Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by kemper.freedesktop.org (Postfix, from userid 2987)
id C147710051; Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:16 -0800 (PST)
To: cairo-com...@cairographics.org
X-Git-Repository: git://git.cairographics.org/git/cairo
Message-Id: <20091127125016.c147710...@kemper.freedesktop.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:50:16 -0800 (PST)
From: ajohn...@kemper.freedesktop.org (Adrian Johnson)
Subject: [cairo-commit] src/cairo-pdf-surface.c
X-BeenThere: cairo-com...@lists.cairographics.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: ca...@cairographics.org
List-Id: CVS commit messages for cairo 
List-Unsubscribe: 
, 


List-Archive: 
List-Post: 
List-Help: 
List-Subscribe: , 

MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: cairo-commit-boun...@lists.cairographics.org
Errors-To: cairo-commit-boun...@lists.cairographics.org

 src/cairo-pdf-surface.c |5 +
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)

New commits:
commit 02d7e123d640d62db46ef03d7faecbc7598444e1
Author: Adrian Johnson 
Date:   Fri Nov 27 23:11:56 2009 +1030

PDF: Remove extraneous \n from end of jpeg/jp2 data

PDF requires a '\n' between the end of stream data and the "endstream"
that is not included in the stream length. Ensure this is always added
in _close_stream wher

[notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Carl Worth]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:26:52 +0100, Jed Brown  wrote:
> I'm not sure I follow (at least not when comparing to the sanitized
> headers shown in the online archives).  Could you send me one of these
> headers?

No problem. See attached.

The mail on cairo-commit has a From: address that is auto-generated by
the username of the committer, (so is likely not even valid for a
reply). The To: address (cairo-commit at cairographics.org) also does not
accept any mail. So a reply to either of those addresses will not be
useful.

Instead, the mail sets a Reply-To: to the general
cairo at cairographics.org list.

So that's not your typical Reply-to munging on a mailing list, (in this
case, there's no incoming mail where the munging could break a user's
manually set Reply-To header).

And it sounds like your idea would not break the replying to this list,
(replies would still be directed to cairo@ which is what I want). If I
understand correctly, it would still also reply to cairo-commit@ which
will end up bouncing, until we add something for "reply to sender only".
And that's the same behavior I've had with any MUA and this list.

> When mailing lists munge, do they ever just add to that field (RFC-2822
> says Reply-To may contain multiple addresses)?

I have no idea about that myself.

-Carl

-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

-- next part --
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: cairo-commit-sample.mail
URL: 

Re: [notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Jed Brown]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 09:55:43 -0800, Carl Worth  wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown  wrote:
> > Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
> > unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
> > this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.
> 
> Oh, I really like that. The condition there avoids breaking legitimate
> uses of Reply-To, (such as the cairo lists I run, where cairo-commit@
> has no user-generated From:---just a single automated address, but has
> Reply-To: set to the cairo@ list instead so that replies to committed
> patches go to the right place).

I'm not sure I follow (at least not when comparing to the sanitized
headers shown in the online archives).  Could you send me one of these
headers?

When mailing lists munge, do they ever just add to that field (RFC-2822
says Reply-To may contain multiple addresses)?

Jed


pgpKirRQHlCT4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

Re: [notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Carl Worth]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown  wrote:
> First, I'm aware that such munging is A Bad Thing
> 
>   http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Definitely.

>   From: Some User 
>   To: Sample users list 
>   Reply-To: Sample users list 
>   
> Notmuch reply produces
> 
>   To: Sample users list ,
>   Sample users list 
> 
> Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
> unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
> this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.

Oh, I really like that. The condition there avoids breaking legitimate
uses of Reply-To, (such as the cairo lists I run, where cairo-commit@
has no user-generated From:---just a single automated address, but has
Reply-To: set to the cairo@ list instead so that replies to committed
patches go to the right place).

-Carl


pgpbupBqUbeyW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch

[notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Carl Worth]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:05:06 +0100, Jed Brown  wrote:
> First, I'm aware that such munging is A Bad Thing
> 
>   http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

Definitely.

>   From: Some User 
>   To: Sample users list 
>   Reply-To: Sample users list 
>   
> Notmuch reply produces
> 
>   To: Sample users list ,
>   Sample users list 
> 
> Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
> unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
> this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.

Oh, I really like that. The condition there avoids breaking legitimate
uses of Reply-To, (such as the cairo lists I run, where cairo-commit@
has no user-generated From:---just a single automated address, but has
Reply-To: set to the cairo@ list instead so that replies to committed
patches go to the right place).

-Carl
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

[notmuch] Mailing list Reply-To munging and notmuch reply

[Jed Brown]

First, I'm aware that such munging is A Bad Thing

  http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html

but a lot of lists do it anyway (mostly to work around widely used
mailers with lame defaults).  After munging, we get headers looking like
this

  From: Some User 
  To: Sample users list 
  Reply-To: Sample users list 
  
Notmuch reply produces

  To: Sample users list ,
  Sample users list 

Handling this is a bit messy, I think we want the current behavior
unless To matches Reply-To, in which case we use From and Reply-To.  If
this is indeed the least bad behavior, I will make a patch for it.

Jed


pgpa3jjgDMPLC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
notmuch mailing list
notmuch@notmuchmail.org
http://notmuchmail.org/mailman/listinfo/notmuch