On 2020-06-20 08:48:04 +1000, Cameron Simpson wrote:
> 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" ?
Or "Warning: clearing unexpected buffered data before TLS negotiation".
"TLS negotiation" is what is said here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunistic_TLS
But "buffered data" may not be very clear. The user should know that
this is data from the server. Perhaps:
"Warning: clearing unexpected server data before TLS negotiation"
or
"Warning: clearing unexpected server data between STARTTLS and TLS negotiation"
> 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.
But I'm not sure that everyone understands this convention.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <vinc...@vinc17.net> - Web: <https://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <https://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)
