Subject: Re: bin/5039: change to vacation to support wider variety of mailers
To: Greg A. Woods <>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
List: netbsd-bugs
Date: 02/24/1998 07:05:39
> However if list owners don't have enough sense to put the appropriate
> 'Precedence' header in the mail sent through their list then indeed
> they deserve every "vacation" response they get back to the list.

Whatever gives you the idea there is such a thing as "the appropriate
owner should select a value?  (I looked at RFCs 822, 1122, and 1123, to
no avail; perhaps I missed one.)

> [...] and  have it pay attention *only* to the 'Precedence' header to
> determine if it needs to respond or not.

What on *earth* could a Precedence: header have to do with whether
vacation should respond?  This is a leap of (il)logic I completely fail
to follow.

					der Mouse

		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B