Keith Moore <moore(_at_)cs(_dot_)utk(_dot_)edu>
not quite: a lot of 'bots aren't using it.
A lot of bots are broken and are likely to remain so ;) All your document
does for them is specify in usable detail how they theoretically could be
fixed. (I'm feeling pessimistic today, I guess.)
Keith's document describes best current practices -- what we can best
do today. Defining broken things is okay, and may have a place, but
it doesn't mean those broken things should persist. Appropriate wording
so that folks with these broken things can't point at Keith's document
and say: "see, I'm using Precedence correctly because RFCsuch-and-so
says this is a common use of Precedence".
but I do understand that, currently, setting precedence is probably the
most effective way to get 'bots to not respond to your message.
Well, what are the specific problems with the precedence? Often knowing
the problem better leads to finding a solution.
All I know about precedence is that it has bad karma. It smells of
unreliability. Nothing unusual for responders, that.
:-)
-d