Hey, RT developers,
I just tried to enter a priority on one of my requests, and not only did
it not take it the first time, when I went back to edit, it didn’t take
the correct date that pass either.
Regards,
Shiree
What version of RT are you using? Which interface are you using?On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 12:10:16PM -0500, Shiree Schade wrote:
Hey, RT developers,
I just tried to enter a priority on one of my requests, and not only did
it not take it the first time, when I went back to edit, it didn’t take
the correct date that pass either.Regards,
Shiree
Rt-devel mailing list
Rt-devel@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-devel
jesse reed vincent — root@eruditorum.org — jesse@fsck.com
pgp keyprint: 50 41 9C 03 D0 BC BC C8 2C B9 77 26 6F E1 EB 91
Emacs is a pretty good operating system, but Unix has a better editor.
Oops! Sorry Jesse! I thought this was an INTERNAL feedback mechanism -
didn’t mean to trouble YOU with it!
Please disregard,
Shiree Schade
RT 3.0.2 does not forward the headers when it reports a possible bounce. I
just get the log entries and a message to the admin address saying
“RT thinks this message may be a bounce”
followed by the body of the suspect message.
The headers would be more useful in this case.
Ian Grant, Computer Lab., William Gates Building, JJ Thomson Ave., Cambridge
Phone: +44 1223 334420
RT 3.0.2 does not forward the headers when it reports a possible bounce. I
just get the log entries and a message to the admin address saying“RT thinks this message may be a bounce”
followed by the body of the suspect message.
The headers would be more useful in this case.
More on this: the headers in fact are sent with the message, but they are
banged up against the boundary and there are no MIME-part-headers for the
part. MUAs will therefore silently ignore the extraneous (as they see it)
MIME-part-headers. See the message below for an example.
The MIME-part-headers should read
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Description: forwarded message
there should then be a CRLF CRLF followed by the headers of the forwarded
message. Here’s the example of the erroneous message rt-3-0-2 currently sends
out:From: rt-nospam@cl.cam.ac.uk
To: rt-admin-nospam@cl.cam.ac.uk
Subject: RT Bounce: Re: [rt.cl.cam.ac.uk #88] too long filename problem still
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: rt.cl.cam.ac.uk
Message-Id: E19LfNu-0002Id-00@filo.cl.cam.ac.uk
Sender: WWW www-nospam@cl.cam.ac.uk
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:37:10 +0100
This is a multi-part message in MIME format…
------------=_1054283830-25298-11
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: binary
RT thinks this message may be a bounce
------------=_1054283830-25298-11
Received: from mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.0.15] helo=wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk
ident
=[EqFcDYvRZAYdn0TIDiUaFY5rVsCfSOMn]) by rt.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.36
#1
) id 19LfNu-0002IY-00 for win-admin@rt.cl.cam.ac.uk; Fri, 30 May 2003 09:37:10
0100
Received: from filo.cl.cam.ac.uk ([128.232.8.162] ident=[HMEbLffge2JoguGR/K991I
4ru73DW2xr]) by wisbech.cl.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 3.092 #1) id
19LfNu-0008D6
-00; Fri, 30 May 2003 09:37:10 +0100
Received: from www by filo.cl.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 3.01 #1) id 19LfNt-000
2IM-00; Fri, 30 May 2003 09:37:09 +0100
RT-Attach-Message: yes
Subject: Re: [rt.cl.cam.ac.uk #88] too long filename problem still
Ian Grant, Computer Lab., William Gates Building, JJ Thomson Ave., Cambridge
Phone: +44 1223 334420