Empty Subject instead of tagging

41 views
Skip to first unread message

Urs Grützner

unread,
Aug 17, 2014, 11:40:59 AM8/17/14
to
I wrote a very simple rule to tag a subject, when the mail is addressed to a certain recipient (file...@ems.ch


According to the log the rule is evoked, but the subject of the mail is completely empty. The original subject and the tag are missing. 

Antwort an: in...@ems.ch
(Kein Betreff)
16:01:21.469 2 QUEUE([5648818]) from <in...@ems.ch>, 868 bytes (<FileMaker.53f0b5b1.b.14501@>)
16:01:21.532 4 LOCALRULES(info) rule(Filemaker) conditions met
16:01:21.532 2 LOCALRULES(info) [5648818] rule(Filemaker): subject tagged: '[FM-INFO]'



The weird thing: the same rule, when evoked by mails with a different return path is working correctly!: the tag is added before the original subject, as expected. 

Webclient EMS <postm...@c3000.ch>
[FM-INFO]EMS Web FileMaker Client meldet
04:45:48.521 2 QUEUE([5648522]) from <postm...@c3000.ch>, 1163 bytes (<FileMaker.53f0175a.8.5fce@>)
04:45:48.960 4 LOCALRULES(info) rule(Filemaker) conditions met
04:45:48.960 2 LOCALRULES(info) [5648522] rule(Filemaker): subject tagged: '[FM-INFO]'


Cannot understand this behavior


Thanks for advise


Urs


-------------------------------------------------------------------          
      Urs Gruetzner                               ugrue...@ems.ch
      Engineering Management                 Phone +41 31 326 2323
      Selection E.M.S. AG                    Fax   +41 31 326 2320
      Neuengasse 39 P.O.B. 6019       mobile   +41 79 341 52 92
      CH-3001 Bern Switzerland                    http://www.ems.ch



Technical Support

unread,
Aug 21, 2014, 4:49:22 AM8/21/14
to
Hello,

On 2014-08-17 19:40 , Urs Gr�tzner wrote:
> I wrote a very simple rule to tag a subject, when the mail is addressed to a certain recipient (file...@ems.ch)
>
>
> According to the log the rule is evoked, but the subject of the mail is completely empty. The original subject and the tag are missing.
>
> info <in...@ems.ch>
> An: file...@ems.ch
> Antwort an: in...@ems.ch
> (Kein Betreff)
> 16:01:21.469 2 QUEUE([5648818]) from <in...@ems.ch>, 868 bytes (<FileMaker.53f0b5b1.b.14501@>)
> 16:01:21.532 4 LOCALRULES(info) rule(Filemaker) conditions met
> 16:01:21.532 2 LOCALRULES(info) [5648818] rule(Filemaker): subject tagged: '[FM-INFO]'

It may be that the original mail did not have the Subject header at all?

> The weird thing: the same rule, when evoked by mails with a different return path is working correctly!: the tag is added before the original subject, as expected.
>
> Webclient EMS <postm...@c3000.ch>
> An: file...@ems.ch
> [FM-INFO]EMS Web FileMaker Client meldet
> 04:45:48.521 2 QUEUE([5648522]) from <postm...@c3000.ch>, 1163 bytes (<FileMaker.53f0175a.8.5fce@>)
> 04:45:48.960 4 LOCALRULES(info) rule(Filemaker) conditions met
> 04:45:48.960 2 LOCALRULES(info) [5648522] rule(Filemaker): subject tagged: '[FM-INFO]'
>
>
> Cannot understand this behavior
>
>
> Thanks for advise
>
>
> Urs

--
Best regards,
Dmitry Akindinov.
=======================================================================
When answering to letters sent to you by the tech.support staff, make
sure the original message you have received is included into your
reply.

#############################################################
This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
the mailing list <CGat...@mail.stalker.com>.
To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CGateP...@mail.stalker.com>
To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CGatePr...@mail.stalker.com>
To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CGatePr...@mail.stalker.com>
Send administrative queries to <CGatePro...@mail.stalker.com>

Martin Richter

unread,
Aug 22, 2014, 11:51:21 AM8/22/14
to

Hi all, 

I've syncing the first WP 8.1 device with CGPro, which is working fine the first few days / syncs and after that the sync starts to fail with error code '8500201D'

When I switch of calendar syncing, everthing starts to work fine again - and it stays working fine. 

Has anyone else experienced this issue yet? 

Regards 

Martin

Mark J Strawcutter

unread,
Aug 24, 2014, 10:56:28 AM8/24/14
to
I think there is a difference between an empty Subject: header and
absence of one. In the former case I'd expect CGP to tag, in the latter
I would not expect it to add the header and tag it.

Mark

On 8/24/2014 7:57 AM, Urs Gr�tzner wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Technical Support <sup...@communigate.com <mailto:sup...@communigate.com>>
>> > Subject: Re: Empty Subject instead of tagging
>> > Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 12:49:22 +0400
>> > To: CommuniGate Pro Discussions <CGat...@mail.stalker.com
>> > <mailto:CGat...@mail.stalker.com>>
>> >
>> > Message Header <http://mail.stalker.com/Lists/CGatePro/Message/105116-H.txt>
>> >
>> > Undecoded Message <http://mail.stalker.com/Lists/CGatePro/Message/105116-P.txt>
>> >
>> > Hello,
>> >
>> >> On 2014-08-17 19:40 , Urs Gr�tzner wrote:
>> >>
>> >> /I wrote a very simple rule to tag a subject, when the mail is addressed
>> >> to a certain recipient (file...@ems.ch <mailto:file...@ems.ch>)
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> According to the log the rule is evoked, but the subject of the mail is
>> >> completely empty. The original subject and the tag are missing.
>> >>
>> >> info <in...@ems.ch <mailto:in...@ems.ch>>
>> >> An: file...@ems.ch <mailto:file...@ems.ch>
>> >> Antwort an: in...@ems.ch <mailto:in...@ems.ch>
>> >> (Kein Betreff)
>> >> 16:01:21.469 2 QUEUE([5648818]) from <in...@ems.ch <mailto:in...@ems.ch>>,
>> >> 868 bytes (<FileMaker.53f0b5b1.b.14501@>)
>> >> 16:01:21.532 4 LOCALRULES(info) rule(Filemaker) conditions met
>> >> 16:01:21.532 2 LOCALRULES(info) [5648818] rule(Filemaker): subject
>> >> tagged: '[FM-INFO]'
>> >> /
>> >
>> >
>> > It may be that the original mail did not have the Subject header at all?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> No thats not the case, the subject is never empty in the originals (these are
>> both mails generated from two different servers). And even when it would be
>> empty, the tag should be present in the modified subject.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> /The weird thing: the same rule, when evoked by mails with a different
>> >> return path is working correctly!: the tag is added before the original
>> >> subject, as expected./

try...@rymes.com

unread,
Aug 25, 2014, 9:16:05 PM8/25/14
to
Urs,

I think you have missed a subtle distinction. An empty subject "" is not the same as the complete absence of a subject header, empty or not.

Tom

On Aug 25, 2014, at 3:59 PM, "Urs Grützner" <ugrue...@ems.ch> wrote:

From:Mark J Strawcutter <mjs...@iup.edu>
Subject:Re: Empty Subject instead of tagging
Date:Sun, 24 Aug 2014 10:56:28 -0400
To:CommuniGate Pro Discussions <CGat...@mail.stalker.com>
I think there is a difference between an empty Subject: header and absence of one.  In the former case I'd expect CGP to tag, in the latter I would not expect it to add the header and tag it.

Mark


No its makes no difference. I sent two manual mails, one with empty subject. In both cases the tagging was as expected.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages