On Fri, 2006-07-28 at 10:41 +0100, Jethro R Binks wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Philip Hazel wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 28 Jul 2006, Jethro R Binks wrote:
> >
> > > I seem to recall Philip very recently changed the default for
> > > delay_warning_default to include values for the Auto-Submitted: header
> > > too.
> >
> > Indeed I did. The change will be in the 4.63 release, which I hope to
> > have out next week.
> >
> > > > The question may be what 'List-' headers should be checked?
> >
> > Are List- headers standardized, as the Auto-Submitted: header is?
>
> This RFC discusses them:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2369.txt
>
> "The Use of URLs as Meta-Syntax for Core Mail List Commands and their
> Transport through Message Header Fields"
>
Put it this way, they seem to be more standard than the Precedence
header :-)
RFC 3834 (section 3.1.8) mentions:
Because the Precedence field is non-standard...
and RFC 2076 (section 3.9):
Precedence: Non-standard,
controversial,
discouraged.
I have found no similar quotes saying that the 'List-' headers are
non-standard or discouraged.
John.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Horne, University of Plymouth, UK Tel: +44 (0)1752 233914
E-mail: John.Horne@??? Fax: +44 (0)1752 233839
