[db-wg] Defined roles

On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 05:29:05PM +0100, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:

>   I don't have any problem with the concept of an abuse-c:, in whatever
>   colour, shape or texture. the real problem that I (still) have after so
>   many years is that we still lack a definition of "abuse", and which part
>   of an organisation is supposed to deal with the "abuse". 
> 
>   Also note that usually there is an aspect of "incoming" and
>   "originated" abuse.

In that case, db-wg will only supply the tools and not make any decision
on the contents or the usage and we should get other working groups
involved in this (anti-spam ?).

However in some sort of way, the information in the database is 'abused'
by users in the way that they don't use the correct attributes. This in
some form can be explained as the current tools lacking some functionality
or being to complex to use for the larger public.

So what we need to decide on is whether there is a problem and users will
gain something if we add some functionallity to the system.

I think that the usability of the system is on-topic for this working
group and as far as my personal opinion goes, we need to do something
extra to stop people from 'abusing' certain information before the
majority decides that it's a lost game and start removing information
which is usefull for other parts of the work like troubleshooting 'the
internet'.

We don't have to go further then to specify you can include only 1 valid
email address and advice people to insert the address where they want to
recieve the complaints and if you query the database for this information
use this field as a default.

MarcoH