On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 at 18:46 GMT, Ronald F. Guilmette penned: > > Free advice: Try not to be a pinhead. > > There is _no_ RFC which standardizes any usage of the `Precedence:' > header, and I suspect that you knew that already. > > rfc2076 only says that Precedence: is non-standard and `discouraged'. > > So what? If I cannot show you an RFC that tells you that shooting > your- self in the foot is a Bad Thing[tm] does that mean that you are > going to rush out and do it? > > Try not to be a putz. > > There is much existing practice with respect to the Precedence: > header, and if you're not too busy, maybe you could take the time to > investigate that common existing practice. (There are a few thousands > different kinds of autoresponders out there, and the vast majority of > them use `Precedence: junk'.) > > Your claim that there are spam filters that filter out `Precedence: > junk' is silly. For every one of those you can find, I can find TWO > that are filtering out `Precedence: bulk', because that indicates > *bulk* e-mail (which, if unsolicited, is by definition spam).
Free advice: If you're trying to accomplish something, the worst possible approach is to insult the people who can make it happen, especially when they've been perfectly polite to you. The only putz I see here is you. -- monique _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
