At 2:07 PM -0400 10/24/00, James M Galvin wrote:
>Precedence is not a standard insofar as it's use is not documented by a
>recognized "authority". On the other hand, it has several de facto
>uses, with the emphasis there on uses, i.e., more than one. Thus, it's
>hard to call it *a* standard, except perhaps in a specific context.
I'm rather suprised nobody's fought to standardize this (but no, I
don't plan on it). it would be a good thing to do, especially if the
standardization would include a formal way of identifying mailbots
and vacationbots and the like. Using Precedence: list, Precedence:
bulk, et al is a big use of Precedence, but so many things still
"roll their own" and make it tough for people trying to do the right
thing and avoid nasty bot-loops.
Formalizing Precedence and building in a formal standard for bot
identification and recognition would be a big plus.
>However, to suggest that all elist technologies or services should set
>this value is false. For example, when the elist services of expansion
>and distribution are provided as part of the MTA, i.e., the email system
>never gives up control of the message, it would be inappropriate to set
Good point. When I think of this stuff, I generally make the
(incorrect) assumption it's ALL MLM stuff. But it brings up an
interesting issue -- how should this be id-ed?
List-ID is heading towards RFC (or is it final?). procmail sort of
users X-loop. Should there be a standard way of identifying that mail
was auto-generated in some way and if so, what kind of information
should be provided?
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:email@example.com)
Be just, and fear not.