[rt-users] Overriding Precedence Header

[Sebastian Flothow]

Am 30. Jun 2004 um 05:44 Uhr schrieb Darren Nickerson:
> After some digging, it turns out their spam filters had interpreted 
> the bulk precedence header as a sure sign that our correspondence was 
> spam-tastic.

I think I encountered the same problem yesterday. One of our staff 
didn't receive mail from RT any more, and I got bounces (saying the 
address didn't exist!).
His spam filter behaved weirdly, and we had to frob config options at 
random to get it to work, so I can't say for sure that it was the 
Precedence header, but it seemed likely to me.

My question: Is there any kind of standards document regarding the 
"Precedence: Bulk" convention? This would be great when dealing with 
spam filter manufacturers, as I could simply say "your filter is 
broken, it's violating TLA 42" or something like that, rather than 
having to argue about the correct interpretation of the Precedence 
header.


Sebastian

-- 
Sebastian Flothow
sebastian at flothow.de

Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 > Why is top posting frowned upon?