On 21 Aug 1996, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> We're going in circles. I asked someone to justify the benefit of doing
> just that versus the time it would take to code and test it. Not that it
> would take all that long; a simple answer to my question would have
> prompted me to produce a patch. Repeating your question does not count as
> answering mine.
You asked:
> be argued that taking some additional steps couldn't hurt. The question
> arises as to whether or not ignoring messages with certain Precedence:
> header? Even outside the UNIX world?
I didn't answer in deference to more experienced opinions. My observation
is that such headers are not used consistently in the UNIX world (even
by some mailing list programs), but when used the priority is most commonly
"bulk". I have seen a "noreply" level used once. I don't know how
significant this minority is that uses Precedence: headers.
> AK> Likewise, how would it hurt to allow a precedence header to be
> AK> configured for messages sent by the majordomo server, say when
> AK> delivering messages to the list-owner of a moderated list, or even when
> AK> answering a request for "help"?
>
> Who knows? All I said was that I would not code it.
That's fine. I'm not demanding that you or anyone else do. I haven't
looked at the source for the new release of Majordomo, and am presently
busy enough to realize that I probably shouldn't make an offer when I
can't fulfill it. I wrote to the list partly to ask a question and
partly to make a suggestion. Given that we're the only two corresponding
about this, perhaps most of the readers don't feel the issue is worth
dealing with.
-Ajay.
References:
|
|
