BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating the operation of Applicant's invention; and
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating the method of Applicant's invention.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating the operation of Applicant's invention. For the case of greatest concern, a source terminal 12 in a network 2 sends an SMS message to destination terminal 10 served by network 4. If the message is not a spam message then network 2 is entitled to the revenue for an originating message. In addition, network 4 upon completing the transmission of the message to the destination terminal requests from network 2 a portion of the revenue collected by the network 2 from terminal 12, because under the prevalent present arrangements, the terminating network is entitled to a portion of the revenues generated in the source network if the message is delivered.
The destination network 4 includes in its SMS Center (SMSC) 3, an anti-spam application (ASA) 7 which checks whether the message received from source terminal 12 is a spam message. If the anti-spam application (ASA) 7 finds that the message is a spam message and the destination terminal 10 is willing to accept spam messages, or at least the category of spam messages which the ASA has found for this message, the SMSC 3 or ASA 7 will determine whether the source terminal 12 or source network 2 is trusted. If trusted and chargeable, the SMSC will deliver the message to the destination terminal 10; SMSC 3 then causes a spam warning message 20 to be sent to the source terminal 12. If the destination network finds that the message comprises undeliverable spam, the destination network may, in accordance with one feature of Applicant's invention, request payment from the source network.
FIG. 1 also illustrates the case in which a spammer at source terminal 16 in network 6 sends a message including a source address in the domain served by network 2. (This process is called “spoofing”.) The SMSC 5 which serves source terminal 16 will charge source terminal 16 for transmitting the message. Spammer source terminal 16 spoofs the message as sending from the network 2. The message appears to have a sender from terminal 12 in network 2. ASA 7 in network 4 has a domain finder 9 which will check the sender address (terminal 12 in the network 2) received in the message against the domain of the network 6 which transmitted the message. In this case, there is a mismatch so that destination network 4 knows that the sender is spoofing and that apparent source network 2 should not be asked to provide a portion of the revenues for the call. The message is discarded by destination network 4.
Source terminal 14 is in the same network 4 as destination terminal 10. In that case, there is no need to share a portion of the terminating charges with the originating network since the originating and terminating networks are the same. The message from source terminal 14 is checked by the anti-spam application 7 to see if it is a spam message; if so and terminal 14 is chargeable, if the message is completed and terminal 14 is charged for sending the message; a spam warning message 22 is sent to the source terminal 14.
FIG. 2 is a flow diagram illustrating the method of Applicant's invention. An anti-spam application (ASA) receives an SMS message (action block 201). The ASA filters the SMS message (action block 203). Test 205 determines whether the filtering action detected a spam message. Any spoofed message is treated as if it contains spam. If not, the SMS message is subject to normal processing (action block 207). If a spam message has been detected in test 205, then test 209 determines whether the address in the message is consistent with addresses from the domain from which the message was received. If the addresses are inconsistent then the message is discarded (action block 212) but the true source network independently charges the source customer. If the address is consistent then test 211, controlled by ASA 7, determines whether the source is a trusted network, or, equivalently an external short message entity (ESME) which is trusted by the source network for sending SMS messages. The object of test 211 is to help determine whether the destination network can expect to collect revenue shared from the originating network for this call. If the source is not a trusted ESME or a trusted network, then test 213, controlled by ASA 7, determines whether the sender is chargeable. If the result of test 213 is a determination that the sender is not chargeable then the spam message is discarded (action block 212). If test 213 determines that the sender is chargeable or if the result of test 211 was positive, then the sender is charged for transmission of the spam SMS message. Then test 217 made in the terminating network determines whether the receiver has a class of service for rejecting spam messages. If so, the spam message is discarded. Then, optionally, the destination network can request reimbursement from the source network for spam filtering costs. If the receiver will accept spam messages, then the spam message is delivered (action block 219) and a warning message is sent to the sender (action block 221). The source network is charged by the destination network for delivery costs. The warning message is also sent in all the cases where the spam message is discarded, i.e., following action block 212.
The above description is of one preferred embodiment of Applicant's invention. Other embodiments will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. The invention is limited only by the attached claims.
Patent Application
20080016159
