"Barry A. Warsaw" wrote:
"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.
I've signed Listserv support list for sometime and this was a frequent question. The Precedence: list header isn't in any standard. If I remember well you will find info just in sendmail docs. It was invented by Eric Allman, who is the author of Sendmail mail and of the vacation program. Listserv refuses to add it since it isn't in the standards.
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 ;-(
I agree that there's no problem adding it, since it avoids problems to the list.
[]s
Paulo Eduardo Neves PUC-Rio de Janeiro Pager: Central: 292-4499 cod. 213 99 64 ou use a URL: http://www.learn.fplf.org.br/neves/mensagempager.html