On Fri, 04 Dec 2015, Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> wrote: > David Bremner <david@tethera.net> writes: > >> Damien Cassou <damien@cassou.me> writes: >> >>> "To" : "rmod@inria.fr", >>> "Reply-To" : "rmod@inria.fr", >>> "From" : "seaside@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 diff --git a/notmuch-reply.c b/notmuch-reply.c index 6df54fc992bb..ed0f9cca5c00 100644 --- a/notmuch-reply.c +++ b/notmuch-reply.c @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply, * that the address in the Reply-To header will always appear in * the reply. */ - if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) { + if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message) && reply_all) { reply_to_map[0].header = "from"; reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL; } BR, Jani.