[Barry A. Warsaw]
> >>>>> "HM" == Harald Meland <Harald.Meland(a)usit.uio.no> writes:
> HM> I have no idea where, or even if, "Precedence: list" is
> HM> standardized in any way, but I think that thath is what
> HM> majordomo is inserting. Being compatible with majordomo when
> HM> it doesn't cost us anything is also, IMHO, a good thing.
> As far as I can tell, it is not documented anywhere; not even in the
> update to RFC 2076.
Sorry, my mistake. I should have said "Due to the behaviour I am
seeing on some of the majordomo lists I am on, I think that majordomo
inserts `Precedence: list' headers."
Now that I have actually done some grepping of the majordomo source, I
can't find anything in majordomo 1.94.4 which should cause the
precedence header to default to anything but "bulk".
Thus, I agree that inserting "Precedence: list" as a default seems
However, I believe that not inserting any Precedence: header *at*all*
will cause trouble. My example (the vacation program which doesn't
know the mapping between local users and local addresses) was meant to
show that inserting *a* Precedence: header would be useful.
> I'll see if I can search around in Majordomo to see what they do,
> but if anybody else can verify this, it would be helpful.
I don't know majordomo very intimately (neither do I want to get to
know it all that much better :), so getting a second opinion would be
Still, config_parse.pl says:
# provide list of known keys. If value is '', then the key is undefined
# I.e. the action is just as though there was no keyword found.
# otherwise the value is the default value for the keyword.
# if the value starts with #!, the rest of the value is eval'ed
%known_keys = (
'precedence', 'bulk', # Set/install precendence header
implying that "bulk" is the default value for the "precedence"