On Fri, Dec 04 2015, David Bremner <david@tethera.net> wrote:

> 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.
>      */

For anyone who did that feature, Thank You ! :D

Tomi