1. The Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to electronic messaging. More specifically, the present invention relates to systems and methods for managing the delivery of electronic messages.
2. Related Technology
Many people and businesses have found electronic messaging, such as emailing and instant messaging, a convenient method of communication because sending and receiving electronic messages can be easy.
Unfortunately, the ease with which electronic messages may be generated and sent has led to the development of unsolicited bulk electronic messages, better known as “spam.” Unsolicited electronic messages come from a large spectrum of different sources and often include commercial advertisements, political messaging, and other undesirable content including pornographic solicitations.
To many users, it seems that the number of unsolicited messages that they receive increases daily. Receiving unsolicited electronic messages is frustrating for many users because they must sort through each electronic message they receive. If they do not sort through their messages regularly, the number of unsolicited electronic messages may soon outnumber the desired electronic messages and make it difficult for a user to find certain electronic messages. Users are understandably frustrated that they must waste time sorting through unsolicited electronic messages that they receive daily. Even if simply deleting the unsolicited electronic messages, users can waste significant amounts of time.
Once started, this flood of unsolicited electronic messages is difficult to stop. Senders of bulk unsolicited electronic messages are difficult to track down because they typically fabricate a sender's electronic address or refrain from including a sender's electronic address altogether. Also, because a bulk address list (depending on how large it is) can be a valuable commodity for use or for sale, holders of bulk address lists typically refuse to remove any address from a list, which would reduce the value of the list. Accordingly, persons that receive bulk unsolicited electronic messages are often unable to successfully request that their address be removed from a bulk address list.
With good reason, users have become wary of giving out their electronic addresses for fear that their electronic addresses will wind up in the hands of those who send unsolicited electronic messages.
For these reasons, users need a way to successfully prevent unwanted or unsolicited electronic messages from being delivered. Some attempts have been made to allow users to filter out unwanted and/or unsolicited electronic messages.
One method allows a recipient to block a sender's e-mail address by adding the sender's e-mail address to the recipient's list of unauthorized senders. However, this method falls short because the sender simply may fabricate a different e-mail address to circumvent the block. Further, before any e-mail from the sender is blocked, the recipient must view an e-mail from the sender, determine that it is unsolicited, and manually add the sender's e-mail address to the recipient's list of unauthorized senders.
Another method filters e-mail that includes certain words or phrases. For example, a recipient that frequently receives unsolicited offers for mortgage loans may add the phrase “mortgage rate” into a filtering component of the recipient's e-mail program. Subsequent e-mail that contains the phrase “mortgage rate” is filtered into a delete or trash folder.
However, this filtering method is flawed for many reasons. First, many unsolicited e-mail do not contain the filtered words and are thus delivered to the recipient. Second, some desired e-mail, which the recipient expects or wants to receive, may include the filtered words and thus may be filtered out. Accordingly, even if the filtering system correctly filters some unsolicited e-mail, the recipient must nevertheless review the entire set of filtered e-mail to determine whether any desired e-mail has been filtered out. Third, not only must the recipient spend time double-checking for erroneously filtered e-mail, but the recipient may also spend a significant amount of time setting up and maintaining the filtering system. Fourth, even if a recipient had the time to maintain the filters, many recipients lack the technical knowledge to be capable of (or to be comfortable with) managing this type of filtering system.
A need therefore exists for systems and methods that reduce some of the above-described disadvantages and problems, reduce all of the above-described disadvantages and problems, and/or reduce other disadvantages and problems.
In some embodiments of the present invention, methods and systems for processing electronic messages are provided. In one aspect of an embodiment of the invention, a system may determine whether a sender of an incoming electronic message is authorized to send messages to one or more recipients.
For example, in response to receiving an electronic message, a system may send one or more challenge messages to a sender of the electronic message. The challenge message may request one or more responses from the sender, from a software program associated with the sender or any other suitable response in any suitable form. If the system receives a satisfactory response, the system may deliver the electronic message to one or more intended recipients. If the system does not receive a satisfactory response, the system may delete or otherwise process the electronic message.
In one aspect of an embodiment, in response to receiving an electronic message, a system may send one or more challenge messages to a sender of the electronic message. The challenge messages may request one or more responses from a system associated with the sender. The challenge messages may be configured to request a response that will require the sender system to spend a certain amount of time, computing resources, or the like to properly respond to the challenge messages. Thus, because many bulk electronic messaging systems must use their limited resources for sending messages or other uses, the challenge messages may be designed to request a response that is impractical for a typical bulk electronic messaging system to provide. Accordingly, many bulk electronic messaging systems will not properly respond, and the bulk electronic message may not be delivered to the intended recipient.
In one aspect of an embodiment, in response to receiving an electronic message, a system may send one or more challenge messages to a sender of the electronic message. The challenge messages may request two or more responses from a sender system. The challenge messages may request that a requested time period elapse between the responses, or that the responses occur at requested intervals, or both. The requested time period, the requested intervals, or both may be configured to request a response that requires the sender system to spend a certain amount of time, computing resources, or the like to properly respond. The challenge messages may be configured to request a response that may be performed by a person (such as personally or manually), but that may be impractical for a typical bulk messaging system to perform.
The activity of a sender system may be monitored. For example, activity such as keystrokes, mouse activity, user-interface activity, or the like may be monitored. The activity of a sender system may be associated with an electronic message. A system may determine whether the associated monitored activity is consistent with a bulk messaging system, a sender of bulk messages, and/or a valid sender. If the activity is consistent with a valid sender, the electronic message may be delivered to the intended recipient. If the activity is not consistent with a valid sender and/or if the activity is consistent with the activity of a bulk messaging system or a sender of bulk messages, the electronic message may be deleted or otherwise processed.
In one aspect of an embodiment, an authentication certificate may be associated with an electronic message. For example, in one embodiment, the authentication certificate may be a digital key that may be attached to an electronic message. A set of messaging rights may be associated with the authentication certificate. Accordingly, a sender may obtain an authentication certificate to use with one or more electronic messages. In response to receiving an electronic message, a system associated with the intended recipient may be configured to determine an authentication certificate permits the electronic message to be delivered. If the authentication certificate permits the electronic message to be delivered, the electronic message may be delivered to the intended recipient. If the authentication certificate does not permit the electronic message to be delivered, the electronic message may be deleted or otherwise processed.
In one aspect of an embodiment, one or more various challenge-response protocols are provided. The challenge-response protocols may vary according to the responses requested, such as the time, resources, and/or effort necessary for a proper response. A system may determine a value representing how consistent an electronic message is with a message from a bulk messaging system, a sender of bulk messages, and/or a valid sender. Based at least in part upon that value, the system may initiate a less intrusive challenge-response protocol, initiate a more intrusive challenge-response protocol, deliver the electronic message, delete the electronic message, or otherwise process the electronic message.
For purposes of summarizing, some aspects, advantages, and novel features have been described. Of course, it is to be understood that not necessarily all such aspects, advantages, or features will be embodied in any particular embodiment of the invention. Further, embodiments of the invention may comprise aspects, advantages, or features other than those that have been described.
Some aspects, advantages, or features of embodiments of the invention may become more fully apparent from the following description and appended claims or may be learned by the practice of embodiments of the invention as set forth in this disclosure.
To further clarify the above and other advantages and features of the present invention, a more particular description of the invention will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the appended drawings. It is appreciated that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the invention and are therefore not to be considered limiting of its scope. Certain embodiments of the invention will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
As used in the context of this disclosure, the terms “electronic messaging” and “electronic messages” are broad terms, and are used in their ordinary meaning, and include any form of sending a message electronically including, but not limited to, e-mail; instant messaging; telephone; voicemail; facsimile; paging; mobile phone text messaging; forms of electronic communication that use a recipient identifier (such as, recipient's address); forms of electronic communication that use a sender identifier (such as, a sender's address); forms of electronic communication that use a sender identifier and a recipient identifier; forms of electronic communication that use do not use a sender identifier nor a recipient identifier; or the like. For sake of simplicity, the following overview of electronic messaging is described in the context of e-mail sent over the Internet.
As used in the context of this disclosure, the term “unsolicited” refers to any electronic message that is not desired by a recipient. Certain embodiments of the present invention may provide various parameters that may indicate that an electronic message is undesired. These parameters may be defined in any suitable manner including, but not limited to, by a system, by a person (such as, a recipient, a system user, a system administrator, or the like), or both by a system and by a person. Therefore, an unsolicited message is any unwanted message that is filtered out according to the defined parameters. In contrast, the term “personal electronic messages” refers to electronic messages that are typically generated manually by a sender (rather than automatically by a machine) and are likely to be sent by valid senders (rather than being sent by mass e-mailers or others who send large volumes of unsolicited electronic messages).
A brief review of the operation of an embodiment of an electronic mailing system over the Internet is provided as follows. Generally, as shown in
Any process, feature, or function described in this disclosure may be performed by the server 16, by the recipient computer 12, the sender computer 10, any other suitable computing devices, or any suitable combination thereof. The server 16, the recipient computer 12, or any other computing devices associated with the recipient are referred to herein collectively as the “recipient computer system.”
As shown in
In one embodiment, a challenge-response method and/or system is provided. For example, in response to receiving the electronic message 20, the recipient computer system may send one or more challenge messages to a sender of the electronic message 20. The challenge messages may request one or more responses from the sender, from a software program associated with the sender, from a computer or other computing device associated with the sender, or any other suitable response in any suitable form. If the recipient computer system receives a satisfactory response, the recipient computer system may deliver the electronic message 20 to one or more intended recipients. If the recipient computer system does not receive a satisfactory response, the recipient computer system may delete the electronic message 20 or otherwise process the e-mail 20. Any of a variety of other challenge-response protocols and/or systems may be used. Exemplary embodiments of some challenge-response protocols and/or systems are described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,199,102; U.S. Pat. No. 6,112,227; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/174,561, filed Jun. 18, 2002, each of which is hereby incorporated herein by reference.
1. System Responses to Challenge Messages
In one embodiment, in response to receiving an electronic message, the recipient computer system may send one or more challenge messages to a “sender system,” which may include one or more computers, one or more software programs, one or more computing devices, or the like that may be associated with the sender, the electronic message, or both. The challenge messages may request one or more responses from the sender system.
The challenge messages may be configured and/or sent in a manner that requires the sender system to spend a certain amount of time, computing resources, or the like to properly respond to the challenge messages. For example, the challenge messages may be configured to request that the sender system provide a set of one or more responses and that the set of responses be completed after an amount of time has elapsed. In one embodiment, the challenge messages may request that sender system provide responses that are separated from each other by a requested interval or greater. In one embodiment, challenge messages may be sent at one or more intervals.
Because many bulk electronic messaging systems use their limited resources for sending messages or other uses, a challenge message may be configured and/or sent in a manner to request a response that is impractical for a typical bulk electronic messaging system to provide. Accordingly, many bulk electronic messaging systems will not properly respond, and many bulk electronic messages may not be delivered to the intended recipient.
If the sender database 56 does not designate the sender as being either authorized or unauthorized for the recipient, the challenge module 42 may begin a challenge process to determine whether to designate the sender as being authorized, unauthorized, or any other suitable designation.
As shown in
The challenge messages 44 may be configured to test whether the sender has a computer that can spend a period of time in responding to the series of challenge messages 44. For example, the challenge module 42 may include a timing component 50. The timing component 50 may establish (or otherwise control, edit, adjust, administer, or the like) the timing requirements for a proper responses 46. In one embodiment, the timing requirements may be used to define the period of time a sender computer must spend in providing a proper response to the series of challenge messages 44.
The sender computer 10 may include a response module 60 that may generate one or more responses 46 in response to one or more challenge messages 44. The response module 60 may automatically generate one or more responses 46. Accordingly, the response module 60 may facilitate the automatic authorization of the senders to send personal electronic messages to recipients. This may be attractive to senders of personal electronic messages. The response module 60 may comprise software, other computer-executable instructions, or the like. In one embodiment, the response module 60 may be incorporated into an e-mail application or another messaging application at the sender computer 10. In one embodiment, the response module 60 may be sent with a challenge message 44. In one embodiment, the response module 60 may be installed on sender computer 10. In one embodiment, the response module 60 may be installed on hardware accessible by the sender computer 10. Of course, the sender computer 10 may be configured to respond to one or more challenge messages 44 in any other suitable manner, with or without the response module 60.
The challenge messages 44 may comprise any of a variety of instructions, puzzles, or other information that can cause a properly configured sender computer 10 to perform actions that result in the generation of correct responses 46. For example, a challenge message 44 may include a string of bytes, and a correct response 46 may be the same string of bytes or a transformation thereof. A challenge message 44 may include instructions for causing a properly configured sender computer to access a web page or another Internet resource. The web page or another Internet resource may be operated by an entity associated with the recipient. The access of the web page or another Internet resource may comprise the response 46 and may indicate to the challenge module 42 that the sender computer has responded correctly to the challenge message 44.
As shown in
As shown in
As shown in
As shown in
As mentioned above, in one embodiment, timing requirements may be used to define the period of time the sender computer 10 must spend in providing a proper response 46 to the series of challenge messages 44. The timing requirements may specify that the challenge module 42 should receive a valid set of responses 46 over a period of time not less than a specified number of seconds after an event, such as the receipt of the electronic message 40. The timing requirements may specify that the challenge module 42 should receive at least one response after an amount of time has passed since an event. Alternatively, the timing requirements may specify that the challenge module 42 should receive at least two of a set of two or more responses after an amount of time has passed since an event. In one embodiment, the timing requirements may specify that the challenge module 42 receive each of a set of one or more responses after an amount of time has passed since an event. In one embodiment, the timing requirements may specify that a response 46a cannot be received sooner than a specified amount of time after a corresponding challenge message 44a has been sent. Of course, the timing requirements may measure elapsed time with respect to any suitable event, including, but not limited to, the receipt of the electronic message 40, the transmission of the first challenge message 44a, or any other suitable events. Further, the timing requirements may specify that any suitable number of one or more responses must be received in any number of suitable fashions, after any suitable time has elapsed, and after any suitable events.
In one embodiment, the timing requirements specify that each response in the series 46 must be separated from one another by not less than a specified amount of time (such as, seconds). The timing requirements may specify that each response in the series 46 be received by the challenge module 42 in intervals greater than or equal to a specified amount of time.
The timing requirements may permit the sender computer 10 to take an amount of time much longer than the specified period, which may accommodate a sender computer that is powered down for an extended time after the initial electronic message 40 is sent. The number of challenge messages 44 can be any suitable number. The period of time specified by the timing component 50 can be any suitable length. However, the period of time may be advantageously short enough not to unduly delay the delivery of authorized electronic messages.
In one embodiment, the challenge module 42 may delay sending one or more successive challenge messages 44 so as to effectively tie up the sender computer 10 for an amount of time. In one embodiment, the sender computer may be required to wait after receiving a challenge message 44a rather than immediately sending the corresponding response 46a.
In one embodiment, challenge module 42 may include a sender activity monitoring module 52. In some situations, the sender activity monitoring module 52 may hinder a sender from simultaneously responding to large numbers of challenge messages for a large number of different electronic messages. The sender activity monitoring module 52 may monitor and limit the number of confirmations or responses in process at any one time from a given IP address, a given range of IP addresses, a given domain, or the like. The sender activity monitoring module 52 may monitor and limit the number of confirmations in process from any single sender, for any particular recipient, or both.
In one embodiment, although the challenge module 42 sends one or more challenge messages requesting one or more responses from the sender computer 10, the sender may respond manually, personally or the like. For example, when a sender computer 10 is not configured to respond automatically, the challenge module 42 may send one or more challenge messages to the sender, according to any suitable challenge-response protocol including but not limited to those described in this disclosure and those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,199,102; U.S. Pat. No. 6,112,227; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/174,561, filed Jun. 18, 2002.
2. Personal Responses to Challenge Messages
In one embodiment, in response to receiving an electronic message, a system may send a one or more challenge messages to a sender of the electronic message. The challenge messages may request one or more responses from the sender. The challenge messages may be configured to request a response that may be performed by a person (such as personally or manually), but that may be impractical for a typical bulk messaging system to perform.
In one embodiment, the challenge message may request that the responses are performed after a requested time period has elapsed, at requested intervals, or both. In one embodiment, the recipient computer system may select (control, edit, administer or the like) the requested time period, the requested intervals, or both. The requested time period, the requested intervals, or both may be configured to request a response that will require the sender to spend a certain amount of time to properly respond. Thus, because senders of bulk electronic messages have limited time, a challenge message may be designed to request a response that is impractical for a sender of a bulk electronic message to personally respond. Accordingly, many senders of bulk electronic messages will not properly respond, and the bulk electronic message may not be delivered to the intended recipient.
In one embodiment, the sender may receive a challenge message with instructions for response. The challenge message may be in any suitable form, such as an electronic message. In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge message may comprise selecting a link to a web page or another Internet resource. In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge message may comprise solving a puzzle. In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge message may comprise identifying and inputting information from a graphical image. In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge message may comprise performing an action that can be detected by the challenge module 42 of the recipient server 16.
In one embodiment, the sender may receive a challenge e-mail message. In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge e-mail message may comprise the sender selecting a first link included in the challenge e-mail message, waiting a certain amount of time (such as, a number of seconds), and then selecting a second link included in the challenge e-mail message.
In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge message may comprise using a graphical puzzle, such as those that are described in U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/469,489, filed on May 9, 2003, entitled “Authorizing Delivery of Electronic Messages by Preventing Machine Recognition and Interpretation of Confirmation Codes,” which is hereby incorporated herein by reference. In one embodiment, a correct response to a challenge message may comprise using any other suitable puzzle, including those that may be developed in the future.
In one embodiment, the challenge message may include entertainment or information to engage the sender's attention during a waiting period.
In one embodiment, the recipient computer system may determine whether some or all of the steps performed by a sender come from a particular IP address, a particular computer, or the like using any suitable method including but not limited to cookies. In one embodiment, the recipient computer may verify that an IP addresses has only one outstanding challenge message at a time. In one embodiment, the recipient computer may verify that an IP addresses has less than a certain limit of outstanding challenge messages at a time. For example, in some situations, an IP address for a well-known proxy may have a higher limit allowed for challenge messages.
In some embodiments, the process of obtaining manual, or personal, responses 46 to challenge messages 44 may be similar to the methods of obtaining responses as described above in reference to
In some embodiments, the process of obtaining manual, or personal, responses 46 to challenge messages 44 may use any suitable challenge-response protocol including but not limited to those described in this disclosure and those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,199,102; U.S. Pat. No. 6,112,227; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/174,561, filed Jun. 18, 2002.
3. Pre-Authorization
In one embodiment, the activity of a sender system (such as sender computer 10) may be monitored. For example, activities such as keystrokes, mouse activity, user-interface activity, or the like may be monitored. In one embodiment, the activity of a sender system may be attached to an electronic message (such as an e-mail). In response to receiving an electronic message, the recipient computer system may determine whether the associated monitored activity is consistent with a bulk messaging system, a sender of bulk messages, and/or a valid sender. If the activity is consistent with a valid sender, the electronic message may be delivered to the intended recipient. If the activity is not consistent with a valid sender and/or if the activity is consistent with the activity of a bulk messaging system or a sender of bulk messages, the electronic message may be deleted or otherwise processed.
Thus, in one embodiment, certain senders may be designated as being authorized based on events or activity that occurs before (or simultaneously with) the generation and transmission of an electronic message to a recipient. In one embodiment, heuristics may be used to identify characteristics likely to be associated with valid senders and not with mass e-mailers or others who send large volumes of unsolicited electronic messages.
It has been observed that e-mail messages and other electronic messages generated manually or personally by valid senders are typically associated with certain types of activity at sender computers. This activity involves the frequency, pattern, and content of keystrokes on a keyboard, mouse activity, clicking on certain buttons of user interfaces, etc. In contrast, computers used by mass e-mailers typically do not engage in this type of activity prior to sending unsolicited electronic messages.
In one embodiment, a sender may decide to permit their computer activity to be monitored. For example, a sender may install a software program onto their computer (such as sender computer 10). The software program may monitor the sender's computer activity and use a set of heuristics to create a digest (or other suitable data structure) that characterizes the activity prior to an electronic message being sent. The digest or other data structure may be appended or otherwise attached to the electronic message. In one embodiment, the digest or other data structure may be encrypted. In one embodiment, the digest or other data structure may comprise a history of one or more computer-related activities. In one embodiment, the digest or other data structure may comprise a characterization of a history of one or more computer-related activities according to a set of heuristics.
Accordingly, any suitable set of one or more heuristics may be used to characterize the sender's computer activity. When the characterization suggests that the electronic message is a personal message and is not unsolicited, the sender, the electronic message, or both may be the preauthorized.
In one embodiment, the preauthorization methods of this embodiment may be used as a substitute for the challenge-response methods described herein. Thus, when a sender is preauthorized based on any suitable heuristics, the electronic message may be delivered to the recipient without any challenge messages. In one embodiment, the preauthorization may be valid for only the single electronic message associated with the activity that is monitored. Of course, in other embodiments, the preauthorization methods of this embodiment may be used in combination with any of the challenge-response methods described in this disclosure and with any other suitable challenge-response method.
In one embodiment, an amount of time is measured from the start of the composition of the electronic message 40 until it is sent. For instance, if it is determined that the sender computer 10 has spent twenty seconds in composing electronic message 40 and a heuristic permits any message at composed using at least fifteen seconds, the sender, the electronic message, or both may be preauthorized. This determination may be performed using any suitable components, such software on the sender computer 10.
In one embodiment, the preauthorization may be valid until revoked. In one embodiment, the preauthorization may be valid for a limited number of one or more subsequent electronic messages. In one embodiment, the preauthorization may be valid for a limited number of one or more subsequent electronic messages over a specified period of time. In one embodiment, the preauthorization may be valid for a limited period of time.
4. Certificates of Authentication Confirming Authorization Status of Senders
In one embodiment, an authentication certificate may be associated with an electronic message. For example, in one embodiment, the authentication certificate may be a digital key that may be attached to an electronic message. A set of messaging rights may advantageously be associated with the authentication certificate. Accordingly, a sender or a sender system may obtain an authentication certificate to use with one or more electronic messages. In one embodiment, the recipient computer system may be configured to determine an authentication certificate permits the electronic message to be delivered. If the authentication certificate permits the electronic message to be delivered, the electronic message may be delivered to the intended recipient. If the authentication certificate does not permit the electronic message to be delivered, the electronic message may be deleted or otherwise processed.
For example, in one embodiment, tokens or data structures can be attached or appended to the electronic messages generated by senders. The tokens or data structures may be used by the recipient computer system to determine whether the sender is authorized based on the use of any of the confirmation or challenge methods disclosed herein. For example, the tokens can specify a score associated with a preauthorization process or can verify that the sender has received a valid certificate of authentication and is using the certificate in the approved way.
In one embodiment, a system may make use of certificates of authentication issued by the receiver system or by an authorized third party. In one embodiment, these certificates may be used to verify that time has passed. In one embodiment, these certificates may be used to verify that the sender has not used up an allowance of confirmations. In one embodiment, these certificates may be used to verify whether the sender uses one server or multiple servers (such as a server farm) that the actions authenticating a particular confirmation can be controlled by the receiver.
For example, a sender may obtain a certificate of authentication and may use the certificate to generate tokens that are attached to the electronic messages. The recipient computer system may use the tokens to help confirm that the sender has received a certificate of authentication and that the certificate is being used in accordance with the terms by which the sender is authorized to send electronic messages. The terms may specify that the sender can send electronic messages to only a limited number of different recipients during a specified period of time, such as in a single day. In this way, authorized senders can send a reasonable number of electronic messages that is less than the number that would be sent by mass e-mailers or others who send large volumes of unsolicited messages. Of course, the terms may specify that the sender may send any number of messages, to any suitable number of recipients, and over any suitable time period.
As noted above, in one embodiment, senders may obtain certificates of authentication that generate data structures that can be attached to electronic messages to confirm the sender's authorized status. This process may be initiated at any suitable time, such as, when a prospective sender contacts a web service associated with the recipient server to register and to obtain a certificate of authentication that includes a digital key. In one embodiment, the digital key can then be used to generate the data structures, or tokens, that establish the fact that the certificate has been obtained and that the authorized sender is using the certificate in ways that comply with the terms of use of the certificate.
In one embodiment, the certificate may be limited to a certain number electronic messages to distinct recipients in a period of time, such as five per hour or forty per day. For example, as the recipient server 16 receives electronic messages 40 with tokens that show the existence of a valid certificate possessed by the sender, the challenge module 42 may determine whether the sender has exceeded the number of permitted electronic messages. The number or frequency of permissible electronic messages is may be selected to be high enough to accommodate high-volume senders of valid personal electronic messages, while making it impractical for many mass e-mailers or others to send large volumes of unsolicited electronic messages. Of course, the number or frequency may be set to any suitable number.
In one embodiment, the use of the certificates of authentication may be monitored by a group of recipient servers, such as a server farm, that process incoming electronic messages for a base of subscribers to determine when those who possess certificates have exceeded the permitted number or frequency of electronic messages. A group of recipient servers may monitor incoming messages sent to an entire base of subscribers so that mass e-mailers or others who might want to send unauthorized electronic messages cannot send large volumes of messages. This method may advantageously be used to limit the number of electronic messages sent to recipients regardless of whether the sender uses one or multiple sender computers.
In one embodiment, a digital key provided to the sender after registration may be provided by a trusted certificate authority (such as a commercial service that operates the recipient servers 16 of
5. Graduated Challenge/Response Activity
In one embodiment, one or more various challenge-response protocols are provided. The challenge-response protocols may vary according to the responses requested, such as the time, resources, and/or effort necessary for a proper response. A system may determine a value representing how consistent an electronic message is with a message from a bulk messaging system, a sender of bulk messages, and/or a valid sender. Based at least in part upon that value, the system may initiate a less intrusive challenge-response protocol, initiate a more intrusive challenge-response protocol, deliver the electronic message, delete the electronic message, or otherwise process the electronic message.
Processes of determining whether an electronic message should be delivered may involve any of a variety of challenge-response protocols, including those that have been disclosed herein. These challenge-response protocols can range from being essentially invisible or minimally intrusive from the standpoint of the sender to being inconvenient. In one embodiment of the invention, the type of challenge that is to be presented to a sender is selected based on any of a number of factors with the goal of being less intrusive while reliably reducing unsolicited electronic messages.
In one embodiment, electronic messages may be delivered to recipients without issuing any challenge messages to the senders. For example, in one embodiment, an electronic message is delivered without a challenge message because the sender has been expressly authorized by the recipient, has been implicitly authorized by the recipient based on a previous electronic message addressed to the sender by the recipient, or it otherwise authorized. Further, in some embodiment, the sender may be previously designated as being authorized based on previous challenge/response activity. In these and other situations in which it has been reliably determined that the sender is authorized, electronic messages may be delivered without an additional challenge.
In one embodiment, certain electronic messages may be determined to be unsolicited with a high degree of confidence without any challenge being issued to the sender. In one embodiment, these types of electronic messages that initially appear to be unsolicited may be delivered to the recipient after the sender has successfully responded to a set of relatively intrusive challenges that prove that the message is valid.
Information that may be used to designate senders as authorized, unauthorized, or the like may be obtained prior to the transmission of the electronic message, at the time of the transmission of the electronic message, after the transmission of the electronic message, or a combination thereof (depending on the intended purpose).
In one embodiment, the decision whether to initiate a post-transmission challenge-response process may be based on information obtained prior to or at the time of the transmission of the electronic message. The qualities of the post-transmission challenge-response process (such as how extensive, rigorous, or intrusive the challenge-response process should be) may be based on information obtained prior to or at the time of the transmission of the electronic message. An example of information obtained prior to the transmission of an electronic message may include the information gathered while monitoring pre-transmission activity of a sender computer as described above. The heuristics applied to this information may result in a score or a token that indicates the degree to which the activity is consistent with either a personal electronic message or an unsolicited electronic message. This score may then be used to determine whether to require a post-transmission challenge-response process and, if so, how extensive the challenge-response process should be. The challenge-response process can be similar to those described herein or those described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,199,102; U.S. Pat. No. 6,112,227; and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/174,561, filed Jun. 18, 2002. If the score indicates a high likelihood of the electronic message being a personal message generated by a valid sender, the challenge-response process may be skipped or relatively transparent to the user, such as a system-based confirmation process described herein. However, if the score is consistent with unsolicited electronic messages, the challenge-response process may be extensive and rigorous. For example, a rigorous challenge-response process may involve either a personal response to a series of challenge messages or personal responses to relatively difficult challenge puzzles that can be solved by a person but are highly unlikely to be solved by a computer or machine. In general, any suitable pre-transmission indicia of unsolicited electronic messages may be used to select the extent and rigor of post-transmission challenge-response processes.
An example of information obtained at the time of the transmission of the electronic message is information obtained using conventional spam filtering software or spam filtering software that may be developed in the future. If the filtering software finds that the content of the electronic message is highly consistent with unsolicited electronic messages, the electronic message may be discarded, may be delivered only upon the successful response to a rigorous and extensive challenge-response process, or may be processed in another suitable manner. For example, the rigorous challenge-response process may involve either a personal response to a series of challenge messages or personal responses to relatively difficult challenge puzzles that can be solved by a person but are highly unlikely to be solved by a computer or machine.
The nature of the challenge-response protocol may be selected for particular senders or domains associated with the senders to balance the considerations of avoiding unnecessary extensive or intrusive challenge-response processes when possible, while initiating enough challenges requiring appropriate responses to eliminate a large percentage of the unsolicited electronic messages that would otherwise be received by recipients in the absence of the invention.
Embodiments within the scope of the present invention also include computer-readable media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon. Such computer-readable media can be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. By way of example, and not limitation, such computer-readable media can comprise physical storage media such as RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to carry or store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures and which can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer.
When information is transferred or provided over a network or another communications connection (either hardwired, wireless, or a combination of hardwired or wireless) to a computer, the computer properly views the connection as a computer-readable medium. Thus, any such connection is properly termed a computer-readable medium. Combinations of the above should also be included within the scope of computer-readable media. Computer-executable instructions comprise, for example, instructions and data which cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions. Data structures include, for example, data frames, data packets, or other defined or formatted sets of data having fields that contain information that facilitates the performance of useful methods and operations. Computer-executable instructions and data structures can be stored or transmitted on computer-readable media, including the examples presented above.
A variety of techniques for reducing the volume of unsolicited electronic messages received by recipients are presented herein. While combinations of these techniques can increase the confidence that unsolicited electronic messages will be reduced, individual techniques can be used in many cases to successfully achieve significant reductions in the number of unsolicited electronic messages that are delivered to recipients. The present invention may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from its spirit or essential characteristics. The described embodiments are to be considered in all respects only as illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is, therefore, indicated by the appended claims rather than by the foregoing description. All changes which come within the meaning and range of equivalency of the claims are to be embraced within their scope.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/537,068, filed Aug. 6, 2009 now U.S. Pat. No. 8,073,916 (now allowed), which is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/841,767, filed May 7, 2004 (now U.S. Pat. No. 7,590,695), which claims priority to and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/469,199, entitled AUTOMATED TECHNIQUES FOR CONFIRMING THE SENDER OF AN ELECTRONIC MESSAGE, which was filed on May 9, 2003. The foregoing patent applications are hereby incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4206315 | Matyas et al. | Jun 1980 | A |
4425665 | Stauffer | Jan 1984 | A |
4626836 | Curtis et al. | Dec 1986 | A |
4638356 | Frezza | Jan 1987 | A |
4807154 | Scully et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4807155 | Cree et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4817018 | Cree et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4819191 | Scully et al. | Apr 1989 | A |
4831552 | Scully et al. | May 1989 | A |
4866611 | Cree et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4977520 | McGaughey, III et al. | Dec 1990 | A |
5023851 | Murray et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5040141 | Yazima et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
5050077 | Vincent | Sep 1991 | A |
5093918 | Heyen et al. | Mar 1992 | A |
5124912 | Hotaling et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5129057 | Strope et al. | Jul 1992 | A |
5159673 | Sackmann et al. | Oct 1992 | A |
5197000 | Vincent | Mar 1993 | A |
5202890 | Iketani et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5204961 | Barlow | Apr 1993 | A |
5245532 | Mourier | Sep 1993 | A |
5261045 | Scully et al. | Nov 1993 | A |
5283856 | Gross et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5319776 | Hile et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5323314 | Baber et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5327486 | Wolff et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5329578 | Brennan et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5333266 | Boaz et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5377354 | Scannell et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5423042 | Jalili et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5448734 | Hrabik et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5457476 | Jenson | Oct 1995 | A |
5467388 | Redd et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5471519 | Howe et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
5473671 | Partridge, III | Dec 1995 | A |
5487100 | Kane | Jan 1996 | A |
5493221 | Wertz | Feb 1996 | A |
5533110 | Pinard et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5539828 | Davis | Jul 1996 | A |
5548789 | Nakanura | Aug 1996 | A |
5557659 | Hyde-Thomson | Sep 1996 | A |
5572246 | Ellis et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5572667 | Ideta | Nov 1996 | A |
5583920 | Wheeler, Jr. | Dec 1996 | A |
5600799 | Young et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5604803 | Aziz | Feb 1997 | A |
5608786 | Gordon | Mar 1997 | A |
5619648 | Canale et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5627764 | Schutzman et al. | May 1997 | A |
5630123 | Hogge | May 1997 | A |
5632018 | Otorii | May 1997 | A |
5655079 | Hirasawa et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5671333 | Catlett et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5694616 | Johnson et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5721779 | Funk | Feb 1998 | A |
5734903 | Saulpaugh et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5742668 | Pepe et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5742769 | Lee et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5781857 | Hwang et al. | Jul 1998 | A |
5793365 | Tang et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5796840 | Davis | Aug 1998 | A |
5796863 | Lyon | Aug 1998 | A |
5805730 | Yaeger et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5805731 | Yaeger et al. | Sep 1998 | A |
5826022 | Nielsen | Oct 1998 | A |
5832227 | Anderson et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835087 | Herz et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5835722 | Bradshaw et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5857708 | Harvey | Jan 1999 | A |
5859967 | Kaufeld et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5872917 | Hellman | Feb 1999 | A |
5878219 | Vance, Jr. et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5884033 | Duvall et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5893911 | Piskiel et al. | Apr 1999 | A |
5909589 | Parker et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5917489 | Thurlow et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5930471 | Milewski et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5930479 | Hall | Jul 1999 | A |
5937160 | Davis et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5937162 | Funk et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5944786 | Quinn | Aug 1999 | A |
5948040 | DeLorme et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960406 | Rasansky et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5960411 | Hartman et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5978791 | Farber et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987508 | Agraharam et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5987606 | Cirasole et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999600 | Shin | Dec 1999 | A |
5999932 | Paul | Dec 1999 | A |
5999967 | Sundsted | Dec 1999 | A |
6006228 | McCollum et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6012051 | Sammon, Jr. et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6014634 | Scroggie et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6014638 | Burge et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6016478 | Zhang et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018343 | Wang et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6018761 | Uomini | Jan 2000 | A |
6018774 | Mayle et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6023723 | McCormick et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6026403 | Siefert | Feb 2000 | A |
6029195 | Herz | Feb 2000 | A |
6047260 | Levinson | Apr 2000 | A |
6052709 | Paul | Apr 2000 | A |
6055510 | Henrick et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6057841 | Thurlow et al. | May 2000 | A |
6058428 | Wang et al. | May 2000 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6076111 | Chiu et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6085166 | Beckhardt et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6085249 | Wang et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092067 | Girling et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6092101 | Birrell et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6097389 | Morris et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104990 | Chaney et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6107990 | Fleming | Aug 2000 | A |
6111572 | Blair et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6112227 | Heiner | Aug 2000 | A |
6141686 | Jackowski et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6144934 | Stockwell et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6151584 | Papierniak et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6154765 | Hart | Nov 2000 | A |
6160518 | Miyahara et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161130 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6161630 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167434 | Pang | Dec 2000 | A |
6173322 | Hu | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6182118 | Finney et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6189026 | Birrell et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195354 | Skalecki et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6195698 | Lillibridge et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199102 | Cobb | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199103 | Sakaguchi et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199106 | Shaw et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6202061 | Khosla et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6205432 | Gabbard et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6216110 | Silverberg | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6226372 | Beebe et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6230188 | Marcus | May 2001 | B1 |
6237027 | Namekawa | May 2001 | B1 |
6240424 | Hirata | May 2001 | B1 |
6249805 | Fleming, III | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249807 | Shaw et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263507 | Ahmad et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266692 | Greenstein | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266814 | Lemmons et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269369 | Robertson | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6275810 | Hetherington et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6278456 | Wang et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282565 | Shaw et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6301608 | Rochkind | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6310946 | Bauer et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6321267 | Donaldson | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6330590 | Cotten | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6336117 | Massarani | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6341349 | Takaragi et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6345260 | Cummings, Jr. et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6349296 | Broder et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6349328 | Haneda et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6353848 | Morris | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6356935 | Gibbs | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6356937 | Montville et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6366661 | Devillier et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6366950 | Scheussler et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6373950 | Rowney | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6393464 | Dieterman | May 2002 | B1 |
6393465 | Leeds | May 2002 | B2 |
6405319 | Arnold et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421709 | McCormick et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6438597 | Mosberger et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6453327 | Nielsen | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6457044 | IwaZaki | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460044 | Wang | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6460074 | Fishkin | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466918 | Spiegel et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6477544 | Bolosky et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6484197 | Donohue | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6490455 | Park et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6493107 | Toyoda et al. | Dec 2002 | B1 |
6507866 | Barchi | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6519703 | Joyce | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6523115 | Ono et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6542943 | Cheng et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6546416 | Kirsch | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6549416 | Sterner et al. | Apr 2003 | B2 |
6584564 | Olkin et al. | Jun 2003 | B2 |
6587550 | Council et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6599139 | Hunter | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6600750 | Joffe et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6625257 | Asaoka et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6633311 | Douvikas et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6640230 | Alexander et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6640301 | Ng | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6650890 | Irlam et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654787 | Aronson et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6660590 | Yoo | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6671357 | Roberts, Jr. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6671718 | Meister et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6678704 | Bridge, Jr. et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6691156 | Drummond et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701440 | Kim et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6704729 | Klein et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6708205 | Sheldon et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6714967 | Horvitz | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6714982 | McDonough et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6725381 | Smith et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6728785 | Jungck | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732149 | Kephart | May 2004 | B1 |
6745936 | Movalli et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6748422 | Morin et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751626 | Brown et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757830 | Tarbotton et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6760752 | Liu et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6763462 | Marsh | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6766352 | McBrearty et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6772196 | Kirsch et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6785679 | Dane et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6799352 | Gilchrist et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6816863 | Bates et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6820204 | Desai et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6823323 | Forman et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6829607 | Tafoya et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6829635 | Townshend | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6845374 | Oliver et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6856963 | Hurwitz | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6868498 | Katsikas | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6880088 | Grazier et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6883095 | Sandhu et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6901398 | Horvitz et al. | May 2005 | B1 |
6963900 | Boyd | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6976207 | Rujan et al. | Dec 2005 | B1 |
6978419 | Kantrowitz | Dec 2005 | B1 |
7016939 | Rothwell et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7043753 | Roddy et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7062498 | Al-Kofahi et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7065341 | Kamiyama et al. | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7072942 | Maller | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7076533 | Knox et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7085925 | Hanna et al. | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7089238 | Davis et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7089241 | Alspector et al. | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7092992 | Yu | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7120927 | Beyda et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7133898 | Malik | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7136897 | Raghunandan | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7149778 | Patel et al. | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7174303 | Glazer et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7177905 | Slutsman et al. | Feb 2007 | B1 |
7185194 | Morikawa et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7185359 | Schmidt et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7188073 | Tam et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7188358 | Hisada et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7200606 | Elkan | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7231427 | Du | Jun 2007 | B1 |
7249175 | Donaldson | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7263545 | Digate et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7280975 | Donner | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7283970 | Cragun et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7299193 | Cragun et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7346696 | Malik | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7383433 | Yeager et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7395221 | Doss et al. | Jul 2008 | B2 |
7512788 | Choi et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7523191 | Thomas et al. | Apr 2009 | B1 |
7587327 | Jacobs et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7590695 | Landsman et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7636683 | Mills et al. | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7865387 | Mansour | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7870200 | Slater et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7912745 | Mansour | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7971150 | Raskutti et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7974849 | Begole et al. | Jul 2011 | B1 |
8073916 | Landsman et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8239236 | Mansour | Aug 2012 | B2 |
20010011225 | O'Connor et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010027472 | Guan | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010027481 | Whyel | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010032245 | Fodor | Oct 2001 | A1 |
20010054072 | Discolo et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020021809 | Salo et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020023132 | Tornabene et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020032602 | Lanzillo et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035493 | Mozayeny et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020042815 | Salzfass et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046099 | Frengut et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020046250 | Nassiri | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020049751 | Chen et al. | Apr 2002 | A1 |
20020055940 | Elkan | May 2002 | A1 |
20020078158 | Brown et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020078441 | Drake et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020083068 | Quass et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020099675 | Agrafiotis et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099781 | Scheussler et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020099938 | Spitz | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020104021 | Gross | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020107856 | Scheussler et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116463 | Hart | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116506 | Lautner | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116508 | Khan et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116641 | Mastrianni | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020124170 | Johnson, Jr. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020132607 | Castell et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020143770 | Schran et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020144136 | Stornetta, Jr. et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147726 | Yehia et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147754 | Dempsey et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020147777 | Hackbarth et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020152272 | Yairi | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156895 | Brown | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020166117 | Abrams et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020178086 | Margeson et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020181703 | Logan et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020184624 | Spencer | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020194308 | Hall | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020199095 | Bandini et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030009385 | Tucciarone et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009387 | Argust | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030009698 | Lindeman et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030023736 | Abkemeier | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030028606 | Koopmans et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030030680 | Cofta et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030036941 | Leska et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037041 | Hertz | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037103 | Salmi et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030037250 | Walker et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030046421 | Horvitz et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030050981 | Banerjee et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030056100 | Beatson | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030065926 | Schultz et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030069874 | Hertzog et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030081621 | Godfrey et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030086543 | Raymond | May 2003 | A1 |
20030095527 | Shanbhag | May 2003 | A1 |
20030097597 | Lewis | May 2003 | A1 |
20030101181 | Al-Kofahi et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030110181 | Schuetze et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110212 | Lewis | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030110400 | Cartmell et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030163691 | Johnson | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030167311 | Kirsch | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030167402 | Stolfo et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030172167 | Judge et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030172291 | Judge et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030172294 | Judge | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030187699 | Bonissone et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191969 | Katsikas | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030195937 | Kircher et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030196116 | Troutman | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030200267 | Garrigues | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030204569 | Andrews et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030212791 | Pickup | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030220978 | Rhodes | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030225841 | Song et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030231207 | Huang | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030233418 | Goldman | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236847 | Benowitz et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040003283 | Goodman et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015554 | Wilson | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040029087 | White | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039912 | Borrowman et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044996 | Atallah | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054741 | Weatherby et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040054887 | Paulsen, Jr. et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040083270 | Heckerman et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040087300 | Lewis | May 2004 | A1 |
20040111478 | Gross et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040111480 | Yue | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040120488 | Dempsey et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128355 | Chao et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040139327 | Brown et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040143633 | McCarty | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148330 | Alspector et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040148358 | Singh et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040167941 | Prahlad et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20040176072 | Gellens | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181462 | Bauer et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181581 | Kosco | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199595 | Banister et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040236835 | Blankenship | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040236838 | Trout | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243676 | Blankenship | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040243698 | Blankenship | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040255120 | Botti et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050012674 | Takei | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015481 | Blankenship | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015482 | Blankenship | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021290 | Velipasaoglu et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050076220 | Zhang et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050076221 | Olkin et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050076222 | Olkin et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050081059 | Bandini et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050188045 | Katsikas | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060027648 | Cheah | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060036701 | Bulfer et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060059238 | Slater et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060079275 | Ella et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060095527 | Malik | May 2006 | A1 |
20060101021 | Davis et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112038 | Luo | May 2006 | A1 |
20060112165 | Tomkow et al. | May 2006 | A9 |
20060149809 | Salo et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168048 | Lyle et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060190481 | Alspector et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20070016641 | Broomhall | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20080162926 | Xiong et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20090006842 | Ross et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090006860 | Ross | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20110106894 | Hodge et al. | May 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
19708856 | Sep 1998 | DE |
0276424 | Aug 1988 | EP |
0276425 | Aug 1988 | EP |
0276426 | Aug 1988 | EP |
0276428 | Aug 1988 | EP |
0276429 | Aug 1988 | EP |
0323703 | Jul 1989 | EP |
0326778 | Aug 1989 | EP |
0 463 252 | Jan 1992 | EP |
0 651 533 | May 1995 | EP |
0 686 327 | Dec 1995 | EP |
0 721 268 | Jul 1996 | EP |
0 725 523 | Aug 1996 | EP |
0 760 565 | Mar 1997 | EP |
0851355 | Jul 1998 | EP |
0 883 271 | Dec 1998 | EP |
0982927 AI | Mar 2000 | EP |
1122672 | Aug 2001 | EP |
1168167 | Jan 2002 | EP |
0942374 | Mar 2003 | EP |
2364474 | Sep 2011 | EP |
2364474 | Jan 2002 | GB |
1-190133 | Jul 1989 | JP |
7-200343 | Aug 1995 | JP |
411187235 | Jul 1999 | JP |
2000-261493 | Sep 2000 | JP |
2001-125851 | May 2001 | JP |
2001-167158 | Jun 2001 | JP |
2002-163341 | Jun 2002 | JP |
2006-0016374 | Oct 2006 | KR |
WO 9406236 | Mar 1994 | WO |
WO 9609714 | Mar 1996 | WO |
WO 9624213 | Aug 1996 | WO |
WO 9714234 | Apr 1997 | WO |
WO 9720423 | Jun 1997 | WO |
WO 9723082 | Jun 1997 | WO |
WO 9724825 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO 9726709 | Jul 1997 | WO |
WO 9837675 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 9910817 | Mar 1999 | WO |
WO 0116695 | Mar 2001 | WO |
WO 0127873 | Apr 2001 | WO |
WO 02077768 | Oct 2002 | WO |
WO 03044617 | May 2003 | WO |
WO 03088510 | Oct 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
US 5,749,074, 05/1998, Kasso et al. (withdrawn) |
Aguilar, Rose, AOL fights to ban junk, CNETNews.com, Sep. 6, 1996, 3 pages, http://www.news.com/News/Item/0.43106,00.html. |
Andrew Leonard, SpamBomers, Sep. 1997, 7 pages, Salon Magazine + about 21st + newsletter. |
Bob Tiptrie, A Way to Stop Spam Messages, online, retrieved Apr. 25, 2003, 4 pages, retrieved from the internet http://groups.google.com/groups. |
Cementing Online Partnerships and Improving User Experience, RSA Security, retrieved online May 17, 2006, 7 pages, www.rsasecurity.com. |
Chinese Abstract for CN 1117680, published Feb. 28, 1996. |
CNET News.com staff, ISP: Internet Spam Provider, Feb. 18, 1997, 2 pages, CNET News.com. |
Cole-Gomolski, Barb, Adoption of S/MIME still lagging, May 11, 1998, 4 pages, http://www.computerworld.com/home/features.nsf/ . . . . |
Controlling E-mail Spam, online, retrieved on Mar. 28, 2003, 5 pages, retrieved from the Internet http://spam.abuse.net/adminhelp/mail.shtml. |
Cynthia Dwork et al., Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail, Jul. 2002, 12 pages, Technical Report CS95-20, Matematics & Computer Science, Weizmann Institute of Science. |
Cynthia Dwork, Fighting Spam May be Easier Than You Think, 1992, 30 pages, presentation given in Crypto. |
Cynthia Dwork, Fighting Spam: The Science, 2004, pp. 3-4, M. Farach-Colton (Ed.): Latin 2004, LNCS 2976, Springer-Verlag Berlin. |
D.J. Bernstein, Variable Envelope Return Paths, Feb. 1, 1997, 2 pages, http://cr.yp.to/proto/verp.txt. |
David A. Wheeler, Countering Spam with Ham-Authenticated Email and the Guarded Email Protocol, Draft: First version Dec. 8, 2002; Released Apr. 2, 2003, 28 pages, dwheeler@dwheeler.com. |
David F. Skoll, How to make SURE a human is sending you mail (was Re: Random e-mails), Nov. 15, 2006, 2 pages, news.admin.net-abuse.usenet, http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.usenet/msg/e601783e8f40c54?d . . . . |
Dealing with Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE, “email spam”), 2005 Public Access Networks Corporation, online, retrieved on Jun. 6, 2003, 3 pages, retrieved from the Internet http://www.panix.com/uce.html, Copyright 2003. |
Douglas G. Henke, All Hail Emperor Lewis?, online, Feb. 20, 1997, 2 pages, retrieved Apr. 25, 2003, retrieved from the internet http://groups.google.com/groups. |
Ed Foster, The Gripe Line Threatening legal action may be the quickest way off a junk e-mailer's list, Info World Info Quote, Sep. 9, 1996, 2 pages, vol. 18, Issue 37, http://www.infoworld.com/egi-bin/siplayArchives.pl? . . . . |
Foiling Spam with an Email Password System, online, retrieved on Jun. 28, 2004, 10 pages, retrieved from the Internet, http://www.uwasa.fi/˜ts/info/spamfoil.html. |
J. Klensin et al., IMAP/POP Authorize Extension for Simple Challenge/Response, Sep. 1997, 5 pages. |
Jameson, Bob, Filter for mail not addressed to you, Jesse Berst's Anchor Desk, Sep. 6, 1996, 3 pages, http://www.news.com/News/Item/0.43106,00.html. |
Janet Kornblum, Programmer Writes Spam Bomb, Aug. 6, 1997, 2 pages, CNET News.com. |
Julian Byrne, My Spamblock; Was: Thwarting UCE Address Culling Programs, online, Jan. 19, 1997, 2 pages, retrieved Apr. 28, 2003, retrieved from the internet http://google.com/groups. |
Julian Byrne, New Improved EZSPAM! Was: My Spamblock . . . , online, Jan. 28, 1997, 4 pages, retrieved Apr. 25, 2003, retrieved from the internet, http://groups.google.com/groups. |
Lorrie Faith Crano et al, Spam!, Aug. 1998, pp. 74-83, Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, No. 8. |
MailCircuit's Email HandShake Verification and Spam Filter Process, online, copyright 1996-2003, 2 pages, MailCircuit.com, retrieved from the Internet http://www.mailcircuit.com/filter.htm. |
Michael's Stop Junk E-Mail, Stop Junk E-mail, Nov. 17, 1996, 2 pages, http://www.crl.com/-michaelp/stopjunkmail.html. |
Mihir Bellare et al., Does Parallel Repetition Lower the Error in Computationally Sound Protocols?, 1997, 24 pages, Proceedings of the 38th Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, IEEE. |
MIT LCS, Applied Security Reading Group, by Email Sit and Kevin Fu, 2 pages, updated May 5, 2003 on the Internet http://www.pdocs.lcs.mit.edu/asrg/. |
NAGS Spam Filter, 11 pages, http://www.nags.org/spamfilter.html. |
Noni Naor, Verification of a Human in the Loop or Identification via the Turing Test, Sep. 1996, Cited in All On-Line Papers. |
P. Resnick, RFC 2822, Apr. 2001, 51 pages, Qualcom Incorporated, http:rfc.net/rfc2822.html. |
Paul Hoffman et al., Unsolicited Bulk Email: Mechanisms for Control, Internet Mail Corsortium Report UBE-SOL, IMCR-2008, revised May 4, 1998, 16 pages. |
Paul Hoffman et al., Unsolicited Bulk Email: Mechanisms for Control, internet Mail Corsortium Report UBE-SOL, IMCR-0005, Oct. 13, 1997, 31 pages. |
Public Access Networks Corporation, Responding to Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE, “email spam”), Feb. 25, 1997, 5 pages, http:www.panix.com/uce.html. |
Ronald F. Guilmette, to Mung or Not to Mung, online, Jul. 24, 1997, 2 pages, retrieved Apr. 25, 2003, retrieved from the internet http://groups.google.com/groups. |
Showing Full Headers of a Message, Nov. 6, 1998, 3 pages, http://www.panix.com/headers.html. |
The Penny Black Project, online, retrieved on May 8, 2006, 2 pages, retrieved from the Internet http://research.microsoft.com/research/sv/PennyBlack/. |
Tim Richardson, Simple Notes on Internet Security and Email, Jun. 28, 1999, 2 pages, http://www.timrichardson.net/security.html. |
Manmatha, A Critical Examination of TDT's Cost Function, 25th ACM SIGIR Conference on R&D in Information Retrieval, 2002, pp. 403-404. |
Manning, Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing, MIT Press, 1999, pp. 1-23. |
Margineantu, Bootstrap methods for the cost-sensitive evaluation of classifiers, ICML-2000, 2000, 8 pgs. |
Marvin, Announce: Implementation of E-mail Spam Proposal, News.admin.net-abuse.misc, Aug. 3, 1996, 3 pgs. |
Massey, Learning Spam: Simple Techniques for Freely-Available Software, USENIX'2003, 2003, pp. 63-76. |
McCallum, A Comparison of Event Models for Naïve Bayes Text Classification, AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, 1998, pp. 1-8. |
McCallum, Efficient clustering of high-dimensional data sets with application to reference matching, KDD-2000, 2000, 10 pgs. |
Mitchell, The Importance of Secretaries, Aug. 4, 1997, 10 pgs. |
Mladenic, Feature Selection Using Linear Classifier Weights: Interaction with Classification Models, SIGIR-04, 2004, pp. 234-241. |
Mladenic, Feature Selection for Unbalanced Class Distribution and Naïve Bayes, 16th International Conference on Machine Learning, 1999, pp. 258-267. |
Morik, Knowledge discovery and knowledge validation in intensive care, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, vol. 19, 2000, pp. 225-249. |
Moschitti, A Study on Optimal Parameter Tuning for Rocchio Text Classifier, ECIR-03, 25th European Conference on Information Retrieval, 2003, pp. 420-435. |
Moseley, The Basics of Outlook, Mastering Office 97 Professional Ed., Chapter 33, Microsoft, ISBN 0/7821-1925-5, 1997, pp. 753-763. |
Muna, Message to mailing list[lmc-richmond] coordinating schedules = meetings, lists.indymedia.org, Sep. 2001, 1 pg. |
Nguyen, PHEmail: Designing a Privacy Honoring Email System, ACM 1-58113-637, CHI'2003, Apr. 2003, pp. 922-928. |
O'Grady, A Groupware Environment for Complete Meetings: U. of Calgary, 1994, 3 pgs. |
Padwick, Special Edition Using Microsoft Outlook 2000, e-book, May 12, 1999, pp. 1-4. |
Padwick, Using Microsoft Outlook 2000, Que Publishing, May 12, 1999, p. 1-93 Pantel, A Spam Classification & Organization Program, AAAI-98, Madison, WI, 1998, 6 pgs. |
Platt, Fast training of support vector machines using sequential minimal optimization, Advances in Kernel Methods—Support Vector Learning, MIT Press, 1999, 24 pgs. |
Platt, Probabilistic Outputs for Support Vector Machines and Comparisons to Regularized Likelihood Methods, Advances in Large Margin Clasifiers, MIT Press, 1999, 11 pgs. |
Plaxo, Product Overview, www.plaxo.com 2002-2004 2pgs. |
Provost, Learning with Imbalanced Data Sets 101, AAAI'2000 Workshop on Imbalanced Data Sets, 2000, pp. 1-5. |
Provost, Naive-Bayes vs. Rule-Learning in Classification of Email, Tech. Report, Dept of Computer Sciences, U. of Texas, Austin, TX, 1999, 4 pgs. |
Provost, Robust Classification for Imprecise Environments, Machine Learning, vol. 42, 2001, pp. 203-231. |
Qualcomm Inc., Eudora MailPro Cersion 3.0 for Windows User Manual, Jun. 1997, 198 pgs. |
Redmond, AlterEgo E-Mail Filtering Agent—Using CBR as a Service, AAAI-98, Workshop on Case-Based Reasoning Integrations, Madison, WI, 1998, 9 pgs. |
Rennie, An Application of Machine Learning to E-mail Filtering, KDD-2000, Workshop on Text Mining, 2000 6 pgs. |
Rennie, Improving Multi-Class Text Classification with Naïve Bayes, Tech. Report ATTR-2001-004, MIT, 2001, 50 pgs. |
Rennie, Tackling the Poor Assumptions of Naïve Bayes Text Classifiers, 20th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2003, pp. 1-8. |
Rudd, Winning the PC Shell Game, Today's Office, Jan. 1989, 1 pg. |
Saerens, Adjusting the Outputs of a Classifier to New a Priori Probabilities: A Simple Procedure, Neural Computation, vol. 14, 2002, pp. 21-41. |
Sahami, A Bayesian Approach to Filtering Junk E-mail, AAAI-98, Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization, Madison, WI, 1998, 10 pgs. |
Sakkis, Stacking Classifiers for Anti-Spain Filtering of E-Mail, EMNLP-2001, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001, pp. 7. |
Salton, A vector-space model for automatic indexing, Communications of the ACM, vol. 18, 1975, 8 pgs. |
Sanderson, Duplicate detection in the Reuters collection, Tech. Report TR-1997-5, Dept. of Computing Science, U. of Glasgow, 1997, 11 pgs. |
Sarawagi, Interactive Deduplicaiton Using Active Learning, SIGKDD 02 Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2002, 839-846. |
Schohn, Less is More: Active Learning with Support Vector Machines, ICML-2000, San Francisco, CA, 2000, pp. 839-846. |
Segal, MailCat: An Intelligent Assistant for Organizing E-Mail, 3rd Int'l Cong. On Autonomous Agents, 1999, 8 pgs. |
Segal, Incremental Learning in SwiftFile, ICML-2000, 2000, 11 pgs. |
Sen, AFormal Study of Distributed Meeting Schedulin Group Decision and Negotiation 7:1998 Kluwe Academic Publishers, Printed in Netherlands, pp. 265-289. |
Shivakumar, N. and Garcia-Molina, H. (1995) SCAM: A Copy Detection Mechanism for Digital Documents. In: 2nd International Conference in Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries (DL 1995), Jun. 11-13, 1995, Austin, Texas, 13 pgs. |
Simpson, RFC 1994: PPP Challenge Handshake Authentication Protocol (CHAP), Network Working Group, Aug. 1996, 13 pgs. |
Olsen-Start-up wants your held to fight spam, CNET News.com Review-700XL, msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1023-937300.html?tag=rn, Jun. 19, 2002, 5 pgs. |
Sutter, Assigning Delegates in Microsoft Outlook, TechRepublic, Sep. 8, 2000, 5 pgs. |
Syroid, Outlook 2000 in a Nutshell, O'Reilly Media Inc., May 2, 2000, 7 pgs. |
Vapnik, Statistical Learning Theory, Chapter 10, John Wiley, NY, 1998, 24 pgs. |
Wahba, Support Vector Machines, Reproducing Kernel Hilbert Spaces and the Randomized GACV 1, Tech Report No. 984rr, Jul. 2, 1998, 23 pgs. |
Webb, Adjusted Probability Naïve Bayesian Induction, 11th Australian Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1998, pp. 1-11. |
Weiss, The Effect of Class Distribution on Classifier Learning: An Empirical Study, Tech. Report ML-TR-44, Dept. of Computer Science, Rutgers U., 2002, 27 pgs. |
Winkler, The State of Record Linkage and Current Research Problems, Tech. Report, Statistical Research Division, U.S. Bureau of Census, Washington, DC 1999, 15 pgs. |
Wu, Refinement Approach to Handling Model Misfit in Text Categorization, ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2002, pp. 1-10. |
Yang, A Comparative Study on Feature Selection in Text Categorization, ICML'97, 1997, pp. 412-420. |
Zadrozny, Learning and making decisions when costs and probabilities are both unknkown, Tech. Report CS2001-0664, U. of California San Diego, 2001, 10 pgs. |
Zadrozny, Obtaining Calibrated Probability Estimates from Decision Trees and Naïve Bayesian Classifiers, 18th International Conference on Machine Learning, 2001, pp. 1-8. |
Zadrozny, Transforming Classifier Scores Into Accurate Multiclass Probability Estimates, 8th International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2002, pp. 1-6. |
Zaragoza, Machine Learning and Textual Information Access, Preceeding the Fourth European Conference on Princi les and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, (PKDD'2000). 1 pg. |
Zhang, Probabilistic Score Estimation with Piecewise Logistic Regression, International Conference on Machine Learning, 2004, pp. 1-8. |
Plaxo, Update Your Address Book!, 2002-2004, 4 pgs. |
Yahoo! Messenger Makes the World a Little Smaller, More Informed, Jun. 21, 1999, pp. 1-2. |
Microsoft TechNet, Microsoft Office 2003 Editions Security Whitepaper, Apr. 1, 2003, pp. 1-2. |
Parker, Management Team, www.plaxo.com, 2002-2004, 3 pgs. |
Plaxo Launches: Makes it Easy to Keep Contact Information, www.plaxo.com, 2002-2004, 2pgs. |
Take a Number Systems, Turn-O-Matic, Oct. 25, 2001, 4 pgs. |
Slipstick, To add addresses automatically, Jun. 7, 2002, pp. 1-2. |
Privacy Recovery with Disposable Email Addresses, IEEE Security Privacy, ISBN 1540-7993/03, 2003, pp. 35-39. |
Vipul's Razor, razor.sourceforge.net, Jun. 24, 2002, 23 pgs. |
The Big Picture, CNET Neews.com Review—700XL, msnbc-cnet.com.com/2104-10230938103.html, Jun. 24, 2002, 2 pgs. |
Yankelovich, Office Monitor, CHI 1996 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Apr. 14-18, 1996, 2 pgs. |
Pavlov, Document Preprocessing for Naïve Bayes Classification and Clustering with Mixture of Multinomials, ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2004, pp. 1-6. |
Voorhees, The Philosophy of Information Retrieval Evaluation, 2nd Workshop of the Cross-language Evaluation Forum, 2001, pp. 355-370. |
Zaragoza, Rhe perception algorithm with uneven margins, ICML 2002, 2002, pp. 379-386. |
Zaragoza, Learning to Filter Spam E-Mail: Comparison of a Naïve Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach, 4th European Conf. on Principles and Practice of Knowledge Discovery in Databases, Lyon, France, Sep. 2000, pp. 1-12. |
Admediation: New Horizons in Effecrtive Email Advertising, Communications of the ACM archive, ISSN 0001-0782, vol. 44, iss. 12, Dec. 2001, pp. 91-96. |
Prasetijo, A Three-Party HTTP Proxy to Support Internet Content Regulation, Australasian Conference on Information Security and Privacy, 2000, pp. 8 pgs. |
Alspector, Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/380,375, Jan. 20, 2010, 13 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/683,426, Oct. 6, 2008, 16 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/683,426, Jun. 8, 2007, 16 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/683,426, Mar. 11, 2009, 15 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/683,426, Jan. 30, 2007, 17 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/740,821, Feb. 24, 2005, 21 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 10/740,821, Jul. 28, 2005, 24 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/380,375, Jun. 15, 2009, 13 Pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/380,375, Oct. 29, 2008, 14 pgs. |
Alspector, Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 11/380,375, Mar. 31, 2008, 17 pgs. |
America Online Inc., International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2004/001784, Jul. 29, 2005, 7 pgs. |
America Online Inc., International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2004/001788, Jul. 29, 2005, 9 pgs. |
America Online Inc., International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2004/043643, Jul. 3, 2006, 6 pgs. |
America Online Inc., International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US2004/001784, Jan. 13, 2005, 8 pgs. |
America Online Inc., International Search Report and Written Opinion, PCT/US2004/001788, Mar. 10, 2005, 9 pgs. |
America Online Inc., Written Opinion, PCT/US2004/043643, May 26, 2005, 5 pgs. |
America Online Inc., International Search Report, PCT/US01/18556, Jun. 5, 2002 2 pgs. |
Chiarella, An Analysis of Spam Filters, A Mayor Qualifying Project Report, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Apr. 2003, 81 pgs. |
Androutsopoulos, A Comparison of a Naïve Bayesian and a Memory-Based Approach, KDD'2000, 2000, 12 pgs. |
Androutsopoulos, An Evaluation of Naïve Bayesian Anti-Spam Filtering, ECML-2000, 2000, pp. 09-17. |
Androutsopoulos, An Experimental Comparison of Naïve Bayesian and Keyword-Based Anti-Spam Filtering with Encrypted Personal E-mail Messages, SIGIR-2000, 2000, pp. 160-167. |
Olsen, Anti-spam service battles bugs, Jun. 20, 2002, 3 pgs, msnbc-cnet.com.com. |
AOL Instant Messenger Windows Beta Features, AOL Instant Messenger All New Version 2.0, What is AOL Instant Messenger, Quick Tips for Getting Started; Frequently Asked Questions About AOL Instant Messenger, Jun. 24, 1999, 18 pgs. |
AOL Technology: turning complicated things into engaging services, 1996 Annual Report, 22 pgs. |
Apte, Automated Learning of Decision Rules for Text Categorization, ACM Transactions, vol. 12, No. 3, Jul. 1994, pp. 233-251. |
Bee Staff Reports, Governor wants to meet with refugee leaders, Modesto Bee, Mar. 5, 1989, p. 2. |
Beitzel, Evaluation of Filtering Current News Search Results, ACM SIGIR Conference on R&D in Information Retrieval, 2004, pp. 1-2. |
Bennett, Assessing the Calibration of naïve bayes' posterior estimates, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Carnegie Mellon University, Sep. 12, 2000, pp. 1-10. |
Bennett, Probabilistic Combination of Text Classifiers Using Reliability Indicators: Models and Results, 25th ACM SIGIR Conference on R&D in information Retrieval, 2002, pp. 207-214. |
Bennett, Using Asymmetric Distributions to Improve Text Classifier Probability Estimates, 26th ACM SIGIR Conference on R&D in Information Retrieval, 2003, pp. 111-118. |
Better Bayesian Filtering, www.paulgraham.com/better.html, Jan. 2003, pp. 1-11. |
Bott, Special Edition using Microsoft Office 2000, Que Publishing, 1999, p. 772-78. |
Bradley, The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms, Patter Recognition, vol. 30, No. 7, 1997, pp. 1145-1159. |
Breiman, Bagging predictors, Machine Learning, vol. 24, 1996, pp. 123-140. |
Breiman, Out-of-bag estimation, Tech. Report, Dept. of Statistics, UC Berkeley, CA, 1996, 13 pgs. |
Brin, Copy detection mechanisms for digital documents, SIGMOD, 1995, pp. 398-409. |
Broder, On the resemblance and containment of documents, SEQS: Sequences '91, 1998, 9 pgs. |
Broder, Syntactic clustering of the web, www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/SRC-TN-1997-015.pdf, 1997, 13pgs. |
Brown, Email with Netscape, Using Netscape 2, Chapter 13, Que Corporation, Jan. 1996, pp. 327-352. |
Brown, Support Vector Machine Classification of Microarray Gene Expression Data, Tech. Report, UCSC-CRL-99-09, UC Santa Cruz, 1999, 31 pgs. |
Buckley, The smart/empire tipster IR system, TIPSTER Phase III Proceedings, 2000, 15 pgs. |
Calabria, Sams Teach Yourself Lotus Notes R5 in 10 Minutes, Sams, Jul. 1999, 27 pgs. |
Chowdhury, Collection statistics for fast duplicate document detection, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, vol. 20, No. 2, 2002, pp. 171-191. |
Cleverdon, The Significance of the Cranfield tests on Indexing Language, 14th International Conference on R&D in Information Retrieval, 1991, pp. 3-12. |
Cloudmark, home products support company, www.cloudmark.com, Jun. 24, 2002, 17 pgs. |
Cobb, International Search Report, PCT/US98/17677, Dec. 29, 1998, 2 pgs. |
Cohen, Context-Sensitive Learning Methods for Text Categorization, 19th ACM SIGIR Conference on R&D in Information Retrieval, 1996, pp. 307-315. |
Cohen, Fast effective rule induction, 12th Int'l Conf. on Machine Learning, 1995, 9 pgs. |
Cohen, Instant Messaging, PC Magazine, PC Labs, Apr. 13, 1999, 2 pgs. |
Cohen, Learning Rules that Classify E-mail, AAAI Spring Symposium on Machine Learning in Information Access, 1996, 10 pgs. |
Cover, Elements of Information Theory, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1991, pp. 1-8. |
Cronen-Townsend, Predicting Query Performance, SIGIR, 2002, pp. 299-306. |
Cybozu Office 4 Support, www.share360.com/support/office4/manuals/updates—-—Linux.all.html, printed Apr. 7, 2008, 7pgs. |
Diederich, Authorship Attibution with Support Vector Machines, Proc. Of the Learning Workshop, Snowbird, Utah, 2000, 17 pgs. |
Domingos, A general method for making classifiers cost-sensitive, KDD'99, ACM Press, 1999, pp. 155-164. |
Domingos, Context Sensitive Feature Selection for Lazy Learners, Artificial Intelligence Review, vol. 11, 1997, 25 pgs. |
Domingos, On the Optimality of the Simple Bayesian Classifier Under Zero-One Loss, Machine Learning, vol. 29, 1997, pp. 103-130. |
Drucker, Support Vector Machines for Spam Categorization, IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks, vol. 10, No. 5, Sep. 1999, pp. 1048-1054. |
Dudley, Telstra targets Net spammers, www.news.com.au/common, Dec. 2, 2003, pp. 1-2. |
Dumais, Inductive Learning Algorithms and Representaions for Text Categorization, 7th Int'l Conf. on Information and Knowledge Management, 1998, pp. 229-237. |
Elkan, The Foundations of Cost-Sensitive Learning, 17th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2001, 6 pgs. |
Eyheramendy, On the Naïve Bayes model for text categorization, 9th Int'l Workshop on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, 2003, 8 pgs. |
Fawcett, ROC graphs: notes and practical considerations, Tech. Report HPL-2003-4, HP LBS, 2003 28 pgs. |
Fleuret, Fast Binary Feature Selection with Conditional Mutual Information, Journal of Machine Learning Research 5, 2004, pp. 1531-1555. |
Forman, An Extensive Empirical Study of Feature Selection Metrics for Text Classification, J. Machine Learning Research 3, 2003, pp. 1290-1305. |
Friedman, Bayesian Network Classifiers, Machine Learning, vol. 29, 1997, pp. 131-163. |
FTC prepares to bust spammers, msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1023-834044.html?tag=bp1st, Feb. 11, 2002, 2 pgs. |
Garrido, Cognitive Modeling and Group Adaptation in Intelligent Multi-Agent Meeting Scheduling 1996 18 pgs. |
Garrido, Multi-Agent Meeting Scheduling: Preliminary Experimental Results, 1996, 8pgs. |
Gavin, How to Advertise Responsibly Using E-Mail and Newsgroups or—how NOT to MAKE ENEMIES FAST!, ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/fyi/fyi28.txt, Nov. 7, 2002, pp. 1-27. |
Graham, A Plan for Spam, www.paulgraham.com/spam.html, 2002, pp. 1-15. |
Habeas, Habeas Frequently Asked Questions, Oct. 3, 2002, 9 pgs. |
Hall, A Countermeasure to Duplicate-detecting Antipspam Techniques, Tech. Report 99.9.1, AT&T Labs, 1999, 54 pgs. |
Hammami, WebGuard: Web based Adult Content Detection and Filtering System, IEEE 0/7695-1932, WI'03, Jun. 2003, pp. 1-5. |
Han, Centroid-Based Document Classification: Analysis and Experimental Results, Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery, 2000, pp. 424-431. |
Harmon, Overview of the First Text Retrieval Conference (TREC-1), Computer Systems and Technology, National Institute of Technology and Standards, 1992, 12pgs. |
Haynes et al., Satisfying User Preferences While Negotiating Meetings; Dept. of Mathematics & Computer Sciences, U. of Tulsa, 1996—1pg. |
Hearst, Support Vector Machines, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Jul./Aug. 1998, 10 pgs. |
Heintze, Scalable document fingerprinting, USENIX Workshop on Electronic Commerce, Nov. 1996, 10 pgs. |
Hidalgo, Combining Text and heuristics for Cost-Sensitive Spam Filtering, CoNLL-2000, Lisbon, Portugal, 2000, 4 pgs. |
Hird, Technical Solutions for Controlling Spam, Proc. AUUG2002, Melbourne, Australia, Sep. 4-6, 2002, 17 pgs. |
Hoad, Methods for identifying versioned and plagiarized documents, J. American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2002, 13 pgs. |
Hu, Yahoo adds spam filter to email, but will it work?, downloaded Feb. 23, 2015, 4pgs. |
Hansell, Internet is Losing Ground in the Battle Against Spam, The New York Times, NyTimes.com, Apr. 2003, pp. 1-4. |
Joachims, Text Categorization with Support Vector Machines: Learning with Many Relevant Features, ECML'98, 1998, pp. 137-142. |
Job Description, Graduate Division, Execute Assistant in the Dean of Graduate Studies, May 7, 1994, 2 pgs. |
Johnson, Method for Automatic Meeting Update upon Requester's Anticipated Change of Expected Attendees, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, Jan. 1994, 3 pgs. |
Katirai, Filtering Junk E-mail: A performance comparison between genetic programming and naïve Bayes, Tech. Report presented at Fall 1999 Mtng of the CMU Text Learning Group, Dept. of Elect/Computer Engineering U. of Waterloo, Nov. 1999, 27 pgs. |
Kangasharju, Secure and Resilient Peer-to-Peer Email: Design and Implementation, IEEE 0/7695-203, P2P'03, May 2003, pp. 1-8. |
Kohavi, Wrappers for Feature Subset Selection, Artificial Intelligence, 1997, pp. 273-324. |
Kleinberg, Bursty and hierarchical structure in streams, KDD-Workshop on Temporal Data Mining, 2001, 25 pgs. |
Kolcz, Improved Naïve Bayes for Extreme Misclassification Costs, High Precision/Recall, abstract, Feb. 18, 2005, 13 pgs. |
Kolcz, Improved Naïve Bayes for Extreme Misclassification Costs, High Precision/Recall, abstract, May 2005, 18pgs. |
Kolcz, Local Scarcity Control for Naïve Bayes with Extreme Misclassification Costs, Feb. 28, 2005, 10 pgs. |
Kolcz, SVM-based Filtering of E-mail Spam with Content-specific Misclassification Costs, TextDM'2001, San Jose, CA, 2001, 14 pgs. |
Koller, Toward Optional Feature Selection, International Conference on Machine Learning, 1996, 15 pgs. |
Kukar, Transductive Reliability Estimation for Medical Diagnosis, Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, vol. 29, 2003, pp. 81-106. |
Lewis, A New Benchmark Collection for Text Categorization Research, J. Machine Learning Research, bol. 5, 2004, pp. 361-397. |
Lewis, Naïve (Bayes) at forty, the independence assumption in information retrieval, ECML-1998, 1998, 12 pgs. |
Lewis, Training Algorithms for Linear Text Classifiers, SIGIR-96, 19th ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 1996, 9 pgs. |
Li, The perception algorithm with uneven margins, ICML 2002, 2002, 8pgs. |
Lin, Formulations of support vector machines: A note from an optimization point of view, Neural Computation, vol. 13, 2001, pp. 307-317. |
Liu, Meeting Runner: AnAutomatic Email-Based Meeting Scheduler, BCL Computers Inc., 2002, 7 pgs. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120079050 A1 | Mar 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60469199 | May 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 10841767 | May 2004 | US |
Child | 12537068 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12537068 | Aug 2009 | US |
Child | 13311114 | US |