[rt-users] Overriding Precedence Header

[Jason Grigsby]

On Jun 29, 2004, at 5:59 PM, Jesse Vincent wrote:
> 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.

Jesse, to clarify, are when you say "Other than that it continues to 
act on it" are you saying that Alex's statement that RT will use the 
X-RT-Loop-Prevention header is incorrect? Or are you saying that it 
doesn't respond to the messages but it still puts them in the queue?

The core question for me is whether changing the precedence header to 
"Normal" will cause problems. Unfortunately, it appears that I've got 
both EZMLM and a customer's MTA that are silently dropping mail with 
the bulk precedence.

Alex: Thanks for the tips on the templates! I much prefer that to 
localizing the routine.

Thank You,

Jason