[Mailman-Developers] The bulk issue

[Harald Meland]

[Barry A. Warsaw]

> >>>>> "HM" == Harald Meland <Harald.Meland@usit.uio.no> writes:
> 
>     HM> I have no idea where, or even if, "Precedence: list" is
>     HM> standardized in any way, but I think that thath is what
>     HM> majordomo is inserting.  Being compatible with majordomo when
>     HM> it doesn't cost us anything is also, IMHO, a good thing.
> 
> As far as I can tell, it is not documented anywhere; not even in the
> update to RFC 2076.

Sorry, my mistake.  I should have said "Due to the behaviour I am
seeing on some of the majordomo lists I am on, I think that majordomo
inserts `Precedence: list' headers."

Now that I have actually done some grepping of the majordomo source, I
can't find anything in majordomo 1.94.4 which should cause the
precedence header to default to anything but "bulk".

Thus, I agree that inserting "Precedence: list" as a default seems
inappropriate.

However, I believe that not inserting any Precedence: header *at*all*
will cause trouble.  My example (the vacation program which doesn't
know the mapping between local users and local addresses) was meant to
show that inserting *a* Precedence: header would be useful.

> I'll see if I can search around in Majordomo to see what they do,
> but if anybody else can verify this, it would be helpful.

I don't know majordomo very intimately (neither do I want to get to
know it all that much better :), so getting a second opinion would be
wise :)

Still, config_parse.pl says:

  # provide list of known keys. If value is '', then the key is undefined
  # I.e. the action is just as though there was no keyword found.
  # otherwise the value is the default value for the keyword.
  # if the value starts with #!, the rest of the value is eval'ed
  %known_keys = (
[...]
          'precedence',           'bulk',   # Set/install precendence header

implying that "bulk" is the default value for the "precedence"
configuration setting.
-- 
Harald