[142746] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Spam?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Bonomi)
Tue Jul 12 13:35:55 2011
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:35:14 -0500 (CDT)
From: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com>
To: jra@baylink.com, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <31252539.1355.1310487729342.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> 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.
