Hi Everyone,
The past few days I've started to see a number of people unsubscribed
from mutt-dev because their mail servers are bouncing DMARC-failing
emails received from mutt-dev.
Most recently this is caused by emails from Maxim, but there was also a
bounce/unsubscribe from an email from
---
init.h | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/init.h b/init.h
index 06d4cc9a..f0d2c697 100644
--- a/init.h
+++ b/init.h
@@ -920,7 +920,7 @@ struct option_t MuttVars[] = {
{ "dotlock_program", DT_PATH, R_NONE, {.p=}, {.p=BINDIR
"/mutt_dotlock"} },
/*
**
* Change the wording for some options to be imperative.
* Rename parameters to be descriptive ("draft" instead of "file").
* Mention possible values for -m parameter.
* Change "file [...]" to "file ..." as ellipsis already implies it's
optional.
* Format entries in the SYNOPSIS to avoid
> well, I have in mind at least three (Unix, the BSDs and groff).
My system uses mandoc. It's used as the default formatter for man
pages in BSDs these days. Mandoc's linter complains about setting
fonts (expanded from .NS macro):
I agree with the proposed change, to reply to an empty Subject: with
just "Re:" (or whatever, if that reply-marking string is configurable).
My taste says that an empty or absent Subject: is valid, and should not
be forbidden or "corrected".
- Original Message -
| From: "Maxim Tarasov"
| To: "mutt-dev"
| Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 1:39:21 PM
| Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change \fC to \fB during muttrc.man generation
|> It depends on which manpage implementation you're using.
|> (I use it when it's available).
|
| I think it's
> It depends on which manpage implementation you're using.
> (I use it when it's available).
I think it's specific to groff.
Do you mean use it for man pages or general roff
- Original Message -
| From: "Kevin J. McCarthy"
| To: mutt-dev@mutt.org
| Sent: Saturday, July 25, 2020 12:14:58 PM
| Subject: Re: [PATCH] Change \fC to \fB during muttrc.man generation
| On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 04:18:03AM +0300, Maxim Tarasov wrote:
|>\fC is not actually a valid escape
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 04:18:03AM +0300, Maxim Tarasov wrote:
\fC is not actually a valid escape sequence. Using it results in
misplaced underlined formatting.
Good catch. I never noticed that escape sequence did nothing.
Pushed. Thank you!
--
Kevin J. McCarthy
GPG Fingerprint: 8975 A9B3
