> >One idea I have would be not to send warning messages in
> >response to mail that has a `Precedence: bulk' header. Would this solve
> >problems as far as you can see ?
>
> This would work for mailing list software that inserts this header.
> Majordomo-operated lists seem to do so (though I believe this can be
> configured on a per-list basis, so it is probably not guaranteed).
> Listserv-run lists don't seem to, and anyway this would only work if all
> list management software adopted the same system (or at least a small
> number of different systems) for identifying list-based mail.  I don't
> think we are there yet.  Perhaps others on the lstown-l list can add
> more insight to this.  Conceptually, this seems to be the direction to
> go--as other threads have mentioned in the past, there seem to be
> different error acknowledgement levels that are appropriate for
> different classes of mail.
 
There's work well under way within the IETF on standardized
formats for delivery status notifications (i.e., successful
delivery, failed delivery, delayed delivery).  The formats
are recogizable by machines and can be tied back to particular
subscribers on a mailing list.  There are also ways to specify
what delivery status notifications are desired.  I can provide
references to the current Internet drafts for anyone interested.
 
Roger Fajman                                   Telephone:  +1 301 402 4265
National Institutes of Health                  BITNET:     RAF@NIHCU
Bethesda, Maryland, USA                        Internet:   [log in to unmask]