Precedence: header in email

后端 未结 5 993
名媛妹妹
名媛妹妹 2020-12-02 10:29

My web application sends email fairly often, and it sends 3 kinds of emails: initiated by user, in response to an event in the system, and in automatic response to an email

5条回答
  •  自闭症患者
    2020-12-02 11:22

    RFC 2076 discourages the use of the precedence header. as you have noted, many clients will just filter that off (especially the precedence: junk variety). it may be better to use a null path to avoid auto responder wars:

    Return-Path: <>
    

    Ultimately you could use priority to try to get around this, but this seems like going against the spirit of the header. i'd suggest just using the return-path header for this, and avoiding precedence. in some cases you may have to write in some way to drop auto-responders in your application (to avoid getting into a responder war), but i can't remember a situation in which this happened using an appropriate return-path. (most auto responder wars i recall having to deal with were the result of very badly formed emails)

    Note: the Return-Path header is, in short, the destination for notifications (bounces, delay delivery, etc...), and is described in RFC 2821 -- because it's required by SMTP. It's also one method to drop bad mail (as theoretically all good mail will set an appropriate return-path).

提交回复
热议问题