David-

> If you choose to use the metaphoric notion of reputation for a system
> that blocks connectivity among people and their agents, and even more,
> to embody it in a quantifiable and economically measurable technology,
> you almost certainly will entangle the system with existing precedent
> and law.

I don't disagree with you --- I think this is part of the tussle.  The
paper that Ethan referred to does not provide a system that hands you
any sort of judgment about the reputation of a host or email address or
"actor" in general.  Rather, the system provides a clearinghouse for
reports of mis-behavior.  Whether you, as someone who wants to reduce
the malicious activity on your network, believe the reports in the
database depends on your own assessment of the credibility of the
reporters of the information to the clearinghouse.

I understand that this does not rid us of all the thorny issues.  But,
let's be clear in what the paper says.  And, what the architecture
provides is a way to share information --- not a way to process that
information or a way to determine that some actor is "bad" or "good".

allman


PS- This paper was largely written as some "initial thoughts".  We are
    not necessarily convinced this approach is sound.  But, we'd
    certainly love to hear people's thoughts.  I'm repeating Ethan's
    reference to the paper for ease of slurping...

    Mark Allman, Ethan Blanton, Vern Paxson. An Architecture for
    Developing Behavioral History.  The Workshop on Steps to Reducing
    Unwanted Traffic in the Internet, July 2005.
    http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/eblanton/publications/history-sruti05.ps