[Mailman-Developers] The bulk issue

[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.  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