[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Frank Gadegast
<ripe-anti-spam-wg at powerweb.de> wrote:
> Anybody, who is against a mandatory abuse field,
> is a professional spammer, abuser, maintains
> a bot net or sells open proxies or other services
> used for abusing others.
> They are criminals to my opinion.

Hopefully your opinion stays where it is, and you don't start calling
people criminal for not supporting a mandatory field in a database
that is full of fake data.

In my country, calling people criminal in public violates the law.
We happen to live in the same country, don't we, Frank?

I know abuse sucks, and it's natural to become bitter and angry about
those *&#(@ that eat up valued resources, but we re talking about a
database change that would not help at all if we'd change it from
"optional" to "mandatory". Just more mails bouncing back.
It's not the "abuse field" I am against, it's the "mandatory" since it
would impact workflows seriously and create much more trouble than it
avoids.

Regards,

Dan