Hey, there are other places on the Internet which don’t even support ‘+’ in email addresses properly - looking at you Twitter - where they strip everything, and including, ‘+’ all the way up to ‘@’. But I want to use a ‘+’ address, FFS!
Rant aside, the post feels a bit melodramatic:
Mutt developers seem completely uninterested in changing this […]
There are three comments on that issue - none from Mutt developers - last one from 8 months ago. No one objects - the issue simply didn’t get anybody’s attention.
Either way, the GitLab issue has this crucial piece of information:
While this perfectly conforms to the RFC […]
Message-ID header specification goes all the way back to the 70s. It feels like Mutt isn’t where things should be fixed.
There are three comments on that issue - none from Mutt developers - last one from 8 months ago. No one objects - the issue simply didn’t get anybody’s attention.
One of the 2 people is the post author. Perhaps the lack of response from a developer was taken as showing lack of interest. (no idea, just trying to empathise)
jot(1) fulfills the same fuction as seq(1) - the former predates (first appeared in 4.2BSD) the latter, hence it can be mostly (only?) found on the *BSDs so there was never need to re-implement seq(1) there, while the latter is in GNU land and Plan 9 who haven’t adopted jot(1).
Hey, there are other places on the Internet which don’t even support ‘+’ in email addresses properly - looking at you Twitter - where they strip everything, and including, ‘+’ all the way up to ‘@’. But I want to use a ‘+’ address, FFS!
Rant aside, the post feels a bit melodramatic:
There are three comments on that issue - none from Mutt developers - last one from 8 months ago. No one objects - the issue simply didn’t get anybody’s attention.
Either way, the GitLab issue has this crucial piece of information:
Message-ID header specification goes all the way back to the 70s. It feels like Mutt isn’t where things should be fixed.
One of the 2 people is the post author. Perhaps the lack of response from a developer was taken as showing lack of interest. (no idea, just trying to empathise)
jot(1)fulfills the same fuction asseq(1)- the former predates (first appeared in 4.2BSD) the latter, hence it can be mostly (only?) found on the *BSDs so there was never need to re-implementseq(1)there, while the latter is in GNU land and Plan 9 who haven’t adoptedjot(1).