Re: Spam?

[Robert Bonomi <bonomi () mail r-bonomi com>]

> From nanog-bounces+bonomi=mail.r-bonomi.com () nanog org  Tue Jul 12 11:29:29 2011
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:22:09 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>
> To: NANOG <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Spam?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Randy Bush" <randy () psg com>
>
> > > Also, where is the reply to header?
> >
> > still in the garbage, where it belongs
>
> NANOG, being a traditional, (semi-)public, technical mailing list, has 
> never had a Reply-to header, and never should.  I concur with the people 
> who assert that adding the Reply-to header formally violates the relevant 
> RFCs, quite aside from the Real World problems it can (and *has*) caused.

*SIGH*  

One more "problem" with the 'new system', Messages through it _have_
a Reply-to: header.  Set to the putative email of the sender, no less.