On 19Jun2020 07:11, Kevin J. McCarthy <ke...@8t8.us> wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 09:48:32AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
>>On 2020-06-18 18:14:15 -0700, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
>>+ /* L10N:
>>+ The server is not supposed to send data immediately after
>>+ confirming STARTTLS. This warns the user that something
>>+ weird is going on.
>>+ */
>>+ mutt_error _("Warning: clearing unexpected buffered data before
>>STARTTLS");
>>
>>The "before STARTTLS" is not clear. Doesn't this occur *after*
>>STARTTLS has occurred?
>
>I had some trouble coming up with a good message. The buffered data
>is after the STARTTLS command is confirmed, but before the actual
>STARTTLS negotiation takes place. If the terminology is bad, I'll be
>happy to change it though. Would it make more sense to just say
>"Warning: clearing unexpected buffered data after STARTTLS"?
"Warning: after STARTTLS: clearing unexpected buffered data" ?
I'm something of a fan of "context: context: context: message". In this
case it avoids some hard to disambiguate grammar from confusing the
parts of the message.
Cheers,
Cameron Simpson <c...@cskk.id.au>
