diff --git a/notmuch-reply.c b/notmuch-reply.c index b380678e..9b78ea2c 100644 --- a/notmuch-reply.c +++ b/notmuch-reply.c @@ -256,17 +256,13 @@ scan_address_string (const char *recipients, * in either the 'To' or 'Cc' header of the message? */ static int -reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message) +reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message, const char *reply_to) { - const char *reply_to, *to, *cc, *addr; + const char *to, *cc, *addr; InternetAddressList *list; InternetAddress *address; InternetAddressMailbox *mailbox; - reply_to = notmuch_message_get_header (message, "reply-to"); - if (reply_to == NULL || *reply_to == '\0') - return 0; - list = internet_address_list_parse_string (reply_to); if (internet_address_list_length (list) != 1) @@ -291,6 +287,47 @@ reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message) return 0; } +static const char *get_sender(notmuch_message_t *message) +{ + const char *reply_to; + + reply_to = notmuch_message_get_header (message, "reply-to"); + if (reply_to && *reply_to) { + /* + * Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it + * being A Bad Thing, see + * http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/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 if reply_all is true. + */ + if (! reply_to_header_is_redundant (message, reply_to)) + return reply_to; + } + + return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "from"); +} + +static const char *get_to(notmuch_message_t *message) +{ + return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "to"); +} + +static const char *get_cc(notmuch_message_t *message) +{ + return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "cc"); +} + +static const char *get_bcc(notmuch_message_t *message) +{ + return notmuch_message_get_header (message, "bcc"); +} + /* Augment the recipients of 'reply' from the "Reply-to:", "From:", * "To:", "Cc:", and "Bcc:" headers of 'message'. * @@ -310,43 +347,22 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply, notmuch_bool_t reply_all) { struct { - const char *header; - const char *fallback; + const char * (*get_header)(notmuch_message_t *message); GMimeRecipientType recipient_type; } reply_to_map[] = { - { "reply-to", "from", GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO }, - { "to", NULL, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO }, - { "cc", NULL, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_CC }, - { "bcc", NULL, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_BCC } + { get_sender, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO }, + { get_to, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_TO }, + { get_cc, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_CC }, + { get_bcc, GMIME_RECIPIENT_TYPE_BCC }, }; const char *from_addr = NULL; unsigned int i; unsigned int n = 0; - /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad - * Thing, see http://marc.merlins.org/netrants/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 if reply_all is true. - */ - if (reply_to_header_is_redundant (message)) { - reply_to_map[0].header = "from"; - reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL; - } - for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE (reply_to_map); i++) { const char *recipients; - recipients = notmuch_message_get_header (message, - reply_to_map[i].header); - if ((recipients == NULL || recipients[0] == '\0') && reply_to_map[i].fallback) - recipients = notmuch_message_get_header (message, - reply_to_map[i].fallback); + recipients = reply_to_map[i].get_header (message); n += scan_address_string (recipients, config, reply, reply_to_map[i].recipient_type, &from_addr);