"David A. Black" <dblack / wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0406030559200.4758-100000 / wobblini...
> Hi --
>
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> >
> > "David A. Black" <dblack / wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0406030437540.1134-100000 / wobblini...
> > > Hi --
> > >
> > > On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > "David Alan Black" <dblack / wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > > > news:m3vfi98ggu.fsf / wobblini.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > Note (from David Black): This was a message sent by Botp to
> > ruby-talk
> > > > > that didn't make it through.  I resent it, with a small change,
to
> > see
> > > > > if it would make it, and it did.
> > > > >
> > > > > The change was to strip "Re:" and put "about" in the subject
> > line....
> > > >
> > > > I assume this is a stupid question, but the GW doesn't contain a
> > header
> > > > detection regexp that looks like this:
> > > >
> > > > /^(.*):\s+(.*)$/
> > > >
> > > > >> /^(.*):\s+(.*)$/ =~ 'Subject: Re: foo bar'
> > > > => 0
> > > > >> $1
> > > > => "Subject: Re"
> > > > >> $2
> > > > => "foo bar"
> > > >
> > > > Really stupid question...
> > >
> > > Which part is the question? :-) If it's whether that regexp appears
in
> > > the code, the answer is no.  But I'm not understanding what suggests
> > > that it might.
> >
> > You said you fixed the message by removing "Re:" from the subject line
and
> > replaced it by "about".  The wild guess was just that - since "Re:"
ends
> > with a colon - there might be a regexp somewhere that wrongly
identifies
> > the header name as "Subject: Re:", which in turn might have had other
> > unwanted consequences.
> >
> > But I barely dared to ask that because I didn't assume that anyone
> > involved in the GW software would use such a regexp...  :-)
>
> Yeah, hopefully not :-) I think what's happening is that the "Re:"
> flags the message as a reply, so then the lack of a Reference: header
> results in rejection of the message (since it then appears to be a
> reply to nothing).  In the case of Botp's message, I saved the
> message, manually removed "Re:", and then resent it to the gateway.

Sounds like the new server software trying to be smart.  Sometimes that's
not a good idea...

Regards

    robert