debian/notmuch
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.notmuchmail.org/git/notmuch synced 2024-11-21 18:38:08 +01:00
Code Issues Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

notmuch reply: Rename the mailing_list_munged_reply_to function

Browse source 
This function detects whether the address in the Reply-To header
already appears in either To or Cc. So give it a name that reflects
what it does (reply_to_header_is_redundant) rather than the old name
which described one possible use of the function, (as a simple
heuristic for detecting whether a mailing list had applied reply-to
munging).
This commit is contained in:
Carl Worth 2010-02-04 12:39:11 -08:00
parent 62379f3dee
commit d111c720ba
1 changed files with 14 additions and 17 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

31
notmuch-reply.c
View file

@ -188,18 +188,11 @@ add_recipients_for_string (GMimeMessage *message,
return add_recipients_for_address_list (message, config, type, list); return add_recipients_for_address_list (message, config, type, list);
} }
/* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad /* Does the address in the Reply-To header of 'message' already appear
* Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html * in either the 'To' or 'Cc' header of the message?
*
* 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.
*/ */
static int static int
mailing_list_munged_reply_to (notmuch_message_t *message) reply_to_header_is_redundant (notmuch_message_t *message)
{ {
const char *header, *addr; const char *header, *addr;
InternetAddressList *list; InternetAddressList *list;
@ -254,14 +247,18 @@ add_recipients_from_message (GMimeMessage *reply,
const char *from_addr = NULL; const char *from_addr = NULL;
unsigned int i; unsigned int i;
/* When we have detected Reply-To munging, we ignore the Reply-To /* Some mailing lists munge the Reply-To header despite it being A Bad
* field (because it appears in the To or Cc headers) and use the * Thing, see http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
* From header so that person will get pinged and will actually *
* receive the response if not subscribed to the list. Note that * The munging is easy to detect, because it results in a
* under no circumstances does this fail to reply to the address in * redundant reply-to header, (with an address that already exists
* the Reply-To header. * 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].header = "from";
reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL; reply_to_map[0].fallback = NULL;
} }