I'm beginning to get a notion of what you are saying. Guys, it would be VERY much easier, if programmers ceased using special lingo and spoke plain English instead.
Not everyone is a geek, nor a regular visitor in your corner of the net, JFYI. Plain English works best, as in e.g. "we have an unstable or beta version of Serendipity we daily work on, which has a function you may need or try out".
"Nightly snapshots" in my own language are something for an XXX movie... and it's the first time I heard such a term applied to alpha/beta or developers' versions and I've been up and about the net for a while already.
So again:
Nope, I cannot give you the domain name/URL of the client. For reasons already explained.
Nope, I do not own the server that this client hosts on, nor do I have access to any other hosting account on this server, nor will I buy host space there just to debug software (which by the way needn't end up on the exact same server anyway). I'm sorry, but that's asking a bit much.
Chances are high that if I set up that same Serendipity installation on a different server, it will work just peachy, it obviously does so on opensourcecms. So this sure isn't going to help in any way.
So, if I know precisely what info you want and how I can procure it for you (in plain English please), I'll do that happily.
As to who helps who here, I'll try to say this easily
I'm not hot 17 anymore, I'm capable of seeing you put a nice effort together with Serendipity and achieved a respectable and commendable piece of software there, which certainly earns every bit of praise one can think of. And you do it without money paid to boot, which is also commendable. I happen to believe in the original postulation of Opensource software, else I wouldn't often enough convince clients to use it, who certainly could just as well pay for commercial software and make my life that much easier this way. These things oughtn't to be voiced aloud, at least not after someone has informed himself about the Opensource credo.
Thus - if Serendipity behaves awkwardly on finding a certain set of variables, my take is that it is in both sides' best interests to solve this. For one side it ensures that the software works with lesser flaws, on the other that it works, is usable and shows it is a good piece of engineering, que no?
Greetings
Raven



