I did a little looking around and there is not much concrete information on the use of that header, but this article
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-bugs/1998/02/25/0000.html Does suggest that it's use is more or less defined by the 'vacation' program created many many moons ago... Ron suggested that bulk may cause problems... Ron - A question... is anything broken? I've always believed that "if it ain't broke, don't monkey with it" (pun intended) tom > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, you wrote: > >>"Ronald F. Guilmette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> The use of a "Precedence: bulk" incorrectly indicates to the >>> receiving site that TMDA challenge messages are part of the traffic >>> of some mailing list whose messages are being delivered to MANY >>> different parties. >> >>Where are you quoting from? Can you provide a reference please? >>Also, I'm not sure that 'bulk' is reserved for mailing lists only. >>AFAIK, there is a "Precedence: list" setting in circulation also. >> >>> TMDA should be fixed to instead generate the header: >>> >>> Precedence: junk >>> >>> for all challenge messages. >> >>Some spam filters (albeit broken ones) designate messages containing >>"Precedence: junk" as junk-mail, which is why we went with 'bulk'. >> >>> ("junk" is the traditional designation for one-time automatically- >>> generated messages, such as those from other kinds of >>> autoresponders.) >> >>Again, a reference to the appropriate RFC, etc, would help here. > > 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). > _____________________________________________ > tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users _____________________________________________ tmda-users mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-users
