[Barry A. Warsaw]

...

...

...

...

...

"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.

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 inappropriate.

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 wise :)

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" configuration setting.

Harald