Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(February 1998)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Bug in subject_prefix or related code?
From: "Brian L. Heess" <dmbong @ commline . com>
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 1998 11:06:06 -0500 (EST)
To: Majordomo Workers <majordomo-workers @ GreatCircle . COM>
Reply-to: "Brian L. Heess" <dmbong @ commline . com>


With:

subject_prefix      =   [$LIST]


A message with the following headers comes in:

(some Rcvd's removed)
Received: from mailtod-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net 
  (mailtod-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net [207.79.35.215]) by
  mailsorter-105.bryant.webtv.net (8.8.5/ms.gso.08Dec97)
  with ESMTP id TAA13933; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:51:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from production@localhost) by mailtod-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net
  (8.8.5/mt.gso.08Dec97) id TAA26712; Tue, 17 Feb 1998 19:51:38 -0800
  (PST)
Message-Id: <199802180351.TAA26712@mailtod-151.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
From: andycran@webtv.net (Andrea Cranford)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:51:38 -0500
To: faith@commline.com
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
Sender: owner-faith@commline.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: andycran@webtv.net (Andrea Cranford)



The product:

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 1998 22:51:38 -0500
From: andycran@webtv.net (Andrea Cranford)
Subject: [none]


Looks like a bug or weird interpretation of standards/desires.  Of course
we could argue about it, but, if I say that the subject gets a prefix, it
should get one...not "[none]"..

What do you guys think?

-Brian


Indexed By Date Previous: mj2-docs Re: Majordomo results
From: "Brian L. Heess" <dmbong@commline.com>
Next: Re: Majordomo results: mj2 (fwd)
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: mj2-docs Re: Majordomo results
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: Re: Bug in subject_prefix or related code?
From: "Brian L. Heess" <dmbong@commline.com>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com