Although my personal preference is that this is not a knob Mutt needs, I am
cognizant that some other popular MUAs use "RE: " rather than "Re: " and while
that looks horrid to my eye, it is not obviously violative of RFC5322 and some
might like Mutt to be configurable to match. Having a check to make sure that
$reply_prefix is set only to something that case-folds to "Re: " seems
unnecessarily restrictive.
Perhaps language from RFC5322 Sec. 3.6.5 should be imported into the
documentation for $reply_prefix, but even that is oddly permissive ("When used
in a reply, the field body MAY start with the string "Re: "") and it would be
weird to change it to MUST, but I suppose wcould.
Incidently, why was $reply_prefix committed without a corresponding doc change?
That doesn't seem like a good practice, but I haven't watched mutt development
commits closely enough so maybe I'm being unreasonable to expect documentation
at the same time as a feature is committed.
--
jh...@alum.mit.edu
John Hawkinson
Vincent Lefevre <vinc...@vinc17.org> wrote on Thu, 13 Jan 2022
at 21:31:27 EST in <20220114023127.gc131...@zira.vinc17.org>:
> On 2022-01-14 03:26:36 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > I strongly disagree with the addition of $reply_prefix
> > (commit 9c1ce59874ce1c8e97d0c5bd71847596dafb1d50), as this is
> > contrary to RFC 5322, and non-standard prefixes are annoying
> > in practice and not necessarily recognized by other users.
> >
> > Sure, a user could already change it manually (or automatically
> > with things like wrappers), but he should not be encouraged to
> > do so (in particular by making this automatic). End users are not
> > necessarily aware of RFCs and technical issues behind some choices.
>
> IMHO, if a user dislikes "Re:", the MUA could have a feature to
> change it[*] to something else *for display only*, a bit like the
> standard headers ("From:", etc.) are translatable.
>
> [*] for Mutt, anything matching $reply_regexp.
