I agree that this "should" be the correct way to handle it, but that still leaves me wondering how Imail handles it. I can't find anything in the RFCs that mentions the Precedence field so I guess they can do whatever they want.
Dan ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Rod Dorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:24:04 -0400 >On Thursday, June 5, 2003, 17:02:47, Dan Shadix wrote: >D> I had misinterpreted bounce messages from some lists I'm on to mean >D> that Imail ignored the Precedence. Based on what you say, it seems >D> that those listservs probably aren't inserting the Precedence field. >D> Does that sound right? >D> Where did you find that information? > >Sorry if I was unclear. I was answering your question about what >"Precedence:" values should suppress a vacation response. > >What I showed was part of the OpenBSD man page for vacation. > >-- >[EMAIL PROTECTED] "The avalanche has already started, it is too >Rod Dorman late for the pebbles to vote." � Ambassador Kosh > > >To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html >List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ >Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/ > To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
