On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 09:42:27PM -0500, John Hawkinson wrote:
> 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.
[...]
> 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.
I looked this up as well -- since it's a "MAY", I would agree that the
change probably does _not_ technically violate the RFC. While it does
mention the "undesirable consequences" of people using other prefixes
from deduplication problems, e.g.,
AW: Re: RE: RE: AW: Some subject line
and that in the case where it is present "only one instance ... ought to
be used", it doesn't specifically say that other prefixes couldn't be
used.
> 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.
I think the docs are auto-generated, so I think the change in init.h is
probably sufficient?
https://gitlab.com/muttmua/mutt/-/commit/9c1ce59874ce1c8e97d0c5bd71847596dafb1d50
w
