You missed a "key" phrase in the man page,
"recognized by sendmail".
-precedence precedence-keyword
Add a Precedence: precedence-keyword header. Prece
dence-keyword should be a keyword recognized by
sendmail. NOT RECOMMENDED.
By default sendmail.cf for version 8.8.8 and higher recognizes;
first-class=0
special-delivery=100
list=-30
bulk=-60
junk=-100
At least these are the ones in my .cf file.
The warning is a bit strong, but bulk_mailer is about 4 years
old now. Sendmail has come a long way since then, as have other
MTAs. There are still advantages to using bulk_mailer though.
It offers the ability to split your distribution lists into bite
size pieces which make it easier for sendmail to deal with, and for
certain domains (AOL for example) to only get X number of recipients
per message or per connection.
Dan Liston
Ian Mortimer wrote:
>
> I've been experimenting with the bulk_mailer and it's working fine
> but I noticed it strips the "Precedence: bulk" headers. I can restore
> them with the '-precedence bulk' argument to bulk_mailer. (The only
> problem with that is it overrides any setting in the list config).
>
> The man page for bulk_mailer strongly warns against using that argument:
>
> NOT RECOMMENDED.
> WARNING: some mailers will bounce the mail if they
> see a Precedence header with a keyword they don't
> understand; some list managers will silently drop
> the mail if they see a Precedence header with a
> keyword they do understand. There is NO safe value
> for the Precedence header that won't cause some
> mailer to mishandle the message. This option is
> therefore not recommended.
>
> Since we're only using bulk the first reason doesn't apply. Since we're
> not planning on subscribing one mailing list to another (a bad practice
> anyway) the second reason doesn't seem to apply either.
>
> Almost every mailing list I'm subscribed to adds a "Precedence: bulk" header
> (and a good thing too since it stops autoresponders - if they're properly
> configured - from replying).
>
> Is the warning still relevant? Is it too strong? (Just wondering).
>
> Is the bulk_mailer still relevant or have sendmail and other MTAs
> improved their handling of large distribution lists enough to make the
> bulk_mailer redundant?
>
> Thanks
> ---
> Ian
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
