>
> I think the reason we keep getting vacation messages here on the
> list may be the capital B in the Precedence: header (reproduced below.)
> The RFC's call for 'bulk', not 'Bulk', and most Unix-based programs are
> intellegent enough to know the difference.
>
> Precedence: Bulk
Actually, the reason why you got 2 NETCOM vacation messages was due to
the message being posted twice: once with no subject and some strange
headers:
>From FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com
Return-Path: <FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com>
Received: from zocalo.net by mail6.netcom.com (8.6.12/Netcom)
id KAA13981; Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:03:11 -0800
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 1995 10:03:11 -0800
>From: FAQ-Maintainers@consensus.com
Message-Id: <199512141803.KAA13981@mail6.netcom.com>
Apparently-To: <obiwan@netcom.com>
Apparently-To: <ashton@netcom.com>
Apparently-To: <bradb@netcom.com>
Apparently-To: <vjl@netcom.com>
Is there a procedure for taking over for someone else as far as being a FAQ
[...]
As you can see, there is no Precedence: header in this email; my vacation
program is set up *not* to reply to bulk/list and I have a special
"noacks" (no acknowledgement) list that contains addresses of thelists I
subscribe to (but that list is case senstive, therefore it didn't catch
the above From_ header due to the caps).
Incedently, the original post was received quite a while before this one
(at least here at NETCOM), and it did have proper headers.
My apologies to those who had to put up with viewing NETCOM users'
vacation-like replies.
Vince
-- vjl@netcom.com Don't you ever wonder why 711 files have .locks Vince LaMonica on them if they're available 24 hours a day?
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved