X-Git-Url: https://git.notmuchmail.org/git?p=notmuch;a=blobdiff_plain;f=notmuch-reply.c;h=98f6442fb14f2ffc61a7650b1db9ab3afdc2f475;hp=cb42de45b300acc0615080796c30c6e06fd08359;hb=d111c720bad53f98edba958aa605e857036a2bc8;hpb=fddd3d831b6a34a47b1e68fcaa1bc63d54240df5

diff --git a/notmuch-reply.c b/notmuch-reply.c
index cb42de45..98f6442f 100644
--- a/notmuch-reply.c
+++ b/notmuch-reply.c
@@ -188,18 +188,11 @@ add_recipients_for_string (GMimeMessage *message,
     return add_recipients_for_address_list (message, config, type, list);
 }
 
-/* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad
- * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
- *
- * This function detects such munging so that reasonable headers can be
- * generated anyway.  Returns 1 if munged, else 0.
- *
- * The current logic is fairly naive, Reply-To is diagnosed as munged if
- * it contains exactly one address, and this address is also present in
- * the To or Cc fields.
+/* Does the address in the Reply-To header of 'message' already appear
+ * in either the 'To' or 'Cc' header of the message?
  */
 static int
-mailing_list_munged_reply_to (notmuch_message_t *message)
+reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message)
 {
     const char *header, *addr;
     InternetAddressList *list;
@@ -207,19 +200,29 @@ mailing_list_munged_reply_to (notmuch_message_t *message)
     InternetAddressMailbox *mailbox;
 
     header = notmuch_message_get_header (message, "reply-to");
+    if (*header == '\0')
+	return 0;
+
     list = internet_address_list_parse_string (header);
+
     if (internet_address_list_length (list) != 1)
 	return 0;
+
     address = internet_address_list_get_address (list, 0);
     if (INTERNET_ADDRESS_IS_GROUP (address))
 	return 0;
+
     mailbox = INTERNET_ADDRESS_MAILBOX (address);
     addr = internet_address_mailbox_get_addr (mailbox);
-    /* Note that strcasestr() is a GNU extension, strstr() might be sufficient */
-    if (strcasestr (notmuch_message_get_header (message, "to"), addr) == 0 ||
-	strcasestr (notmuch_message_get_header (message, "cc"), addr) == 0)
+
+    if (strstr (notmuch_message_get_header (message, "to"), addr) != 0 ||
+	strstr (notmuch_message_get_header (message, "cc"), addr) != 0)
+    {
 	return 1;
-    return 0; }
+    }
+
+    return 0;
+}
 
 /* Augments the recipients of reply from the headers of message.
  *
@@ -244,14 +247,18 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply,
     const char *from_addr = NULL;
     unsigned int i;
 
-    /* When we have detected Reply-To munging, we ignore the Reply-To
-     * field (because it appears in the To or Cc headers) and use the
-     * From header so that person will get pinged and will actually
-     * receive the response if not subscribed to the list.  Note that
-     * under no circumstances does this fail to reply to the address in
-     * the Reply-To header.
+    /* 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. Thie 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.
      */
-    if (mailing_list_munged_reply_to (message)) {
+    if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) {
 	reply_to_map[0].header = "from";
 	reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL;
     }
@@ -271,6 +278,7 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply,
 	if (from_addr == NULL)
 	    from_addr = addr;
     }
+
     return from_addr;
 }