[db-wg] Defined roles

>>   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 ?).

  Indeed.

>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.

  I agree.

>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

  definitely

> 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'.

  Private opinion: I am one of those who think it is a lost case already.
  How long has the info in changed: been abused to spam the folks for the
  address distribution, who simply update a record in the DB, with spam
  and port scan and xyz complaints?

>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

  Wilfried.