It’s as simple as running ngrok http 3000 to forward port 3000 (or any port) to a public ngrok address.
We're not forwarding local port 3000 to a public ngrok address — we're doing it in the opposite direction, as the previous sentence just (correctly) stated:
a secure tunnel to localhost
Include one or both of these headers in your messages:
Actually, if you include List-Unsubscribe-Post, then you MUST include List-Unsubscribe (both).
According to https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8058#section-3.1,
A mail sender that wishes to enable one-click unsubscriptions places one List-Unsubscribe header field and one List-Unsubscribe-Post header field in the message. The List-Unsubscribe header field MUST contain one HTTPS URI. It MAY contain other non-HTTP/S URIs such as MAILTO:. The List-Unsubscribe-Post header MUST contain the single key/value pair "List-Unsubscribe=One-Click".
by using symbols as keys, you will be able to use the implicit conversion of a Mash via the #to_hash method to destructure (or splat) the contents of a Mash out to a block
Eh? The example below:
symbol_mash = SymbolizedMash.new(id: 123, name: 'Rey')
symbol_mash.each do |key, value|
# key is :id, then :name
# value is 123, then 'Rey'
end
seems to imply that this is possible (and does an implicit conversion) because it defines to_hash. But that's simply not true, as these 2 examples below prove:
``` main > symbol_mash.class_eval { undef :to_hash } => nil
main > symbol_mash.each {|k,v| p [k,v] } [:id, 123] [:name, "Rey"] => {:id=>123, :name=>Rey} ```
``` main > s = 'a' => a
main > s.class_eval do def to_hash chars.zip(chars).to_h end end => :to_hash
main > s.to_hash => {a=>a}
main > s.each
Traceback (most recent call last) (filtered by backtrace_cleaner; set Pry.config.clean_backtrace = false to see all frames):
1: (pry):85:in __pry__'
NoMethodError: undefined methodeach' for "a":String
```
However, while URLs allow you to locate a resource, a URI simply identifies a resource. This means that a URI is not necessarily intended as an address to get a resource. It is meant just as an identifier.
However, while URLs allow you to locate a resource, a URI simply identifies a resource.
Very untrue/misleading! It doesn't simply (only) identify it. It includes URLs, so a URI may be a locator, a name, or both!
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3986 states it better and perfectly:
A URI can be further classified as a locator, a name, or both. The term "Uniform Resource Locator" (URL) refers to the subset of URIs that, in addition to identifying a resource, provide a means of locating the resource by describing its primary access mechanism (e.g., its network "location").
This means that a URI is not necessarily intended as an address to get a resource. It is meant just as an identifier.
The "is not necessarily" part is correct. The "is meant" part is incorrect; shoudl be "may only be meant as".
Logistically speaking, I suppose "depender" and "dependee" would be more accurate, though neither of those are proper english words as far as I know.
In the context of software engineering, I've always used "dependent" and "dependee".
Move svelte into dependencies, as it was accidentally stuck in peerDependencies
"accidentally stuck in": well, not really accidentally; it's in the change log so I assume it was intentional