I am beginning to think there need to be two types of abuse reports. One from individuals to their providers -- of the ilk: "This guy is spamming me!!". You have to accept these from your customers because they could be about you or someone else that you have the responsibility of forwarding on. This is the controversial part of the proposal: You do not need to accept these from non-customers. This is the improvement part: Another of the ilk from abuse desks (and certain individuals who have high enough clue factor) that is in an automatically parseable format. Maybe like a radb type format. It would be fairly trivial to handle the parsing. In the event of an attack [on your abuse desk], you can say no more than 1000 per day/hr from the same source --- this keeps your abuse desk from getting flooded. Known talkers can be exempted from rate limits. You have to accept a properly formatted one of these from everyone unless they are flooding you. Obvious here is that if someone isn't going to respond to an abuse item, it doesn't matter what form you send it -- If you are Spamhaus or some other organization and you are going to blackhole them in their lack of response, you of course can still do this. The idea here is that guys who are responsive don't need to read 800 complaints about the same matter that they are already handling and responsible complainers The idea is that this type of approach, if adopted, will stream line abuse desks and allow them to have predictable manpower hours needed to resolve x number of complaints because you will not have to deal with one abuse item more than the one or twice needed. You will also not need personnel to categorize incoming messages as [spam to your abuse desk, spam complaints to your abuse desk that are valid, spam complaints to your abuse desk about someone else]. Flames in private mail please. What am I missing on this busy Monday afternoon? Thanks, DJ