There is a site setting reply_by_email_enabled which when combined with reply_by_email_address creates a Reply-To header in emails in the format "test+%{reply_key}@test.com" along with a PostReplyKey record, so when replying Discourse knows where to route the reply.
However this conflicts with the IMAP implementation. Since we are sending the email for a group via SMTP and from their actual email account, we want all replys to go to that email account as well so the IMAP sync job can pick them up and put them in the correct place. So if the group has IMAP enabled and configured, then the reply-to header will be correct.
This PR also makes a further fix to 64b0b50 by using the correct recipient user for the PostReplyKey record. If the post user is used we encounter this error:
if destination.user_id != user.id && !forwarded_reply_key?(destination, user)
raise ReplyUserNotMatchingError, "post_reply_key.user_id => #{destination.user_id.inspect}, user.id => #{user.id.inspect}"
end
This is because the user above is found from the from_address, but the destination which is the PostReplyKey is made by the post.user, which will be different people.
Our Email::Sender class accepts an optional user argument, which is used to create a PostReplyKey record when present. This record is used to sub out the %{reply_key} placeholder in the Reply-To mail header, so if we do not pass in the user we get a broken Reply-To header.
This is especially problematic in the IMAP group SMTP situation, because these emails go to customers that we are replying to, and when they reply to us the email bounces! This fixes the issue by passing user to the Email::Sender when sending a group_smtp email but there is still more to do in another PR.
This Email::Sender optional user is a bit of a footgun IMO, especially because most of the time we use it there is a user we can source. I would like to do another PR for this after this one to make the parameter not optional, so we don't end up with these reply issues down the line again.
