[rt-users] Overriding Precedence Header

[Jesse Vincent]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:36:48PM -0400, Alex Vandiver wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 19:17, Jason Grigsby wrote: 
> > 1. Is there any problem with changing the precedence? I see several 
> > places that look like RT evaluates the precedence of incoming email. 
> > I'm concerned that RT may be expecting it's own mail to have precedence 
> > or bulk as a safeguard against mail loops or something. Am I being 
> > paranoid?
> RT, ironically, does the same thing as EZLM -- it uses the Precedence:
> header to drop mail from autoresponders and the like.  It uses a
> separate flag for loop detection, X-RT-Loop-Prevention.  Hence, changing
> the precedence of outgoing mail won't break anything.

No. That's not actually quite right. RT _doesn't respond_ to incoming
mail with a precendece of bulk. Other than that it continues to act on
it. Setting the precedence header to "bulk" is a pretty widely honored
convention for saying "This email message was generated by a machine,
not a human. If you're a machine (like a vacation autoresponder), you
don't want to reply to the sender, as you're likely to generate a loop.

--