Am 22.09.2016 um 20:22 schrieb Thorsten Froehlich:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> Let me guess: You don't remember yourself what the problem was about,
>> and nobody deemed it worth documenting somewhere within the code, or any
>> other place easily accessible, right?
> 
> I recall coming up with a quick fix for this, but that is about it, indeed :-(
> 
> Documentation is highly overrated ;-)

Could it have been that some portion of the code erroneously identified
`+am` as `+a` with a (nonsensical) parameter value `m`, and that the
quick fix was to internally change `+a` (in its incarnation with
parameter) to `+a0`?

Post a reply to this message