Re: mutt/2304: reply / group reply behavior broken WRT $reply_to and $reply_self
The following reply was made to PR mutt/2304; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Derek Martin <code@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: bug-any@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc:
Subject: Re: mutt/2304: reply / group reply behavior broken WRT $reply_to and
$reply_self
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 08:15:41 -0400
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 05:45:02PM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > The essential problem is that when $reply_to is set (and
> > there is a Reply-to header), but $reply_self is unset, Mutt
> > does the wrong thing. It ignores the Reply-to header
> > completely, whether the user is REPLYing or GROUPREPLYing.
> > This apparently is true of all versions of Mutt including
> > and prior to the current CVS.
>
> Maybe I'm thinking about this the wrong way, but the behavior
> that you describe sounds logical to me: If I send a mail, and
> set a reply_to header, then that is an alternative address for
> myself. So, if $reply_self is unset, mutt should ignore it.
I take it you remain unconvinced about this?
If I can summarize very succinctly, the problem is this:
1. The point of $reply_to is to tell mutt to either honor or not honor
the Reply-to header.
2. Under the circumstances I previously described, Mutt will not honor
the Reply-to header even when $reply_to is set, and in fact the
recipient list will be identical in those cases, whether $reply_to is
set or not set. This simply makes no sense.
I don't see how that isn't a bug, and you haven't explained why it
isn't a bug... If you simply can't see that behavior by looking at
the code, then your analysis is incorrect; in which case I would
encourage you to set up a test message, and actually TRY what I
described, as I suggested before. The behavior I described is
definitely exhibited by Mutt; I was able to reproduce it with 4
different versions of Mutt, and the problem was actually called to my
attention by a co-worker who complained to me about it. If you take a
minute to test what I went through a lot of effort to describe in
detail, you'll see that the behavior I described is actually what is
exhibited by Mutt. Then if you apply my patch, you'll find that it
fixes the behavior: Mutt will reply sensibly in all possible cases.
--
Derek D. Martin
http://www.pizzashack.org/
GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEuNxtdjdlQoHP510RAvPUAKCHV0nJRYxcdgzp/E8h8rKZVY9AtACfZUZh
iexEe5pSPbHpBr8YMac8Dqw=
=3Of4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--y0ulUmNC+osPPQO6--