[anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dan Luedtke
maildanrl at gmail.com
Fri Aug 3 08:45:38 CEST 2012
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
- Previous message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
- Next message (by thread): [anti-abuse-wg] the mandatory abuse field
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]