On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Frank Gadegast <ripe-anti-spam-wg@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