Dec. 19, 1998
2:42 p.m.
"HM" == Harald Meland <Harald.Meland@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. 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.
HM> The only reason I see for _not_ adding any Precedence: header,
HM> is that Mailman-delivered messages have half a truckload of
HM> headers as it is. But that, IMHO, isn't really a strong
HM> argument -- as long as all the headers are there for some good
HM> reason, they _should_ be in there.Yeah, and the IETF draft adds 9 more headers ;-(
-Barry