We can keep the item open and update the status accordingly (Fixed if you dare or, or simply Work For Me).

I'm not sure how you see the discussion with mailman people but I does not looks like we'll have then to even suppose there may be a bug in their stuff.

4 messages saying this problem only occurs with mails transiting via mailman, they are still blaming another software for the bug.

So let's jump to conclusion:
We cannot seriously think of a php/exim sudden bug. PHP at gna is not on the same system than mailman. So whatever happens, mailman receive the mail from Savane just as if it was coming from anywhere else in the galaxy.

Is the s/\r\n/\n/ effective? If so, I think we can close the item.

Sylvain, can you fix it (seems you have details about it)? If so, could you make an ETA? It would be good to have this item getting fixed before 1.0.6 and I'd like to release 1.0.6 soon (after the NEWSCM branch merge)

I'd say commit + submit a bug against the mailman package on debian.

I looked at the way phpBB handles the problem.
Answer: it doesnt, although it replaces \n by \r\n.
$message = preg_replace("#(?<!\r)\n#si", "\r\n", $message);

I similarly replaced \r\n by \n and Mailman was happy.
$message = str_replace("\r\n", "\n", $message);

RFC821 is very vague about what newline should be used during the DATA command, except that DATA should end with "<CRLF>.<CRLF>".

All in all, it looks like a bug in Mailman, but using a consistent (non-mixed) \n newline convention as I did does not break anything and makes Mailman happy.

Commit or not commit?

For the record,

https://mail.gna.org/public/savane-dev/2005-02/msg00108.html
uses \n\n.

Both -unavailable- and -unavailable- receive correct direct notification (only 1 \n).

Well it must be mailman-related eventually, I guess..

I am really puzzled, because when I received notifications at beuc.net, I get them right, and when I receive it via the mailing lists, all new lines are doubled.

But, when I write long lines that wordwrap(), I get the paragraph right in both cases.

I wonder if beuc.net is not automatically stripping \n\n to \n if the duplication is consistent throghouth the message... anyway given what I said it can't come from Mailman alone.

Any clue?

It is right. I never noticed it because my mailer remove \n when it consider they are too many.