On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:59:13PM -0000, John R. Levine wrote:
>
> > I spoke with one systems administrator who said that my messages
> > were being received with PRECEDENCE=NORMAL, and the sysadmin uses
> > that to gauge who gets an auto-responder.
>
> I'm glad that sysadmin doesn't get to mess with any of the computers
> around here.
>
> The rule of thumb that Bernie and I have mentioned, only respond to
> mail that has your address on the To: or Cc: line, has been well known
> for literally 20 years. This particular wheel really doesn't need
> reinventing, particularly in view of how badly most people do so.
Neither guideline is complete in itself. For example I might do a
normal group reply on a mailing list and get several individual
addresses in the header and be lazy or forgetful and not fix it up
(e.g. like this one). As we've seen there are people who argue FOR
leaving the individual addresses in the reply header just as
vehemently as those who argue against it. Testing for "precedence:
{list,bulk}" has been around for ages too-- along with testing for
various addresses like "*-request" and somewhat newer tests against
various list signatures. But yeah, holding the inverted notion that
"precedence:normal" somehow makes it OK is a bit jerklike.
mm
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
