1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates to handling unwanted email messages by automatically compiling a list of senders of email messages that are to be discarded without scanning.
2. Description of the Related Art
Malicious codes in the form of trojans, worms, adware, spyware, and rootkits have multiplied and grown enormously throughout the last two decades. In the computer and internet technology world there are estimated to be 180,000 viruses in existence, with new ones hitting computers every day. The response to these problems has created an industry of Antivirus and Anti-spyware products. Although malware, such as viruses, trojans and worms are quite prevalent, the most widespread form of malware is unsolicited commercial email, commonly known as spam. The use of spam has grown rapidly and still growing. The corporate world and individual home users are spending millions of dollars to combat spam. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have to cope with greatly increasing day to day amounts of network traffic due to the increase in spam emails. If spam traffic continues to grow, it may become unmanageable in the near future.
Typically, spam has been fought by the use of software that scans all incoming email messages to determine whether each message is spam. If so, the messages are accordingly marked as ***SPAM*** or quarantined. These actions are taken on each email message that arrives at an email server that is protected by the anti-spam software. Each email message is categorized depending upon the rules that it triggers. These rules can be a mixture of BAYSEAN filtering, honeypot addresses and mail rules, Header and Heuristic analysis, Text Analysis, URL classifications etc. These rules are updated on monthly, weekly or even daily basis depending upon the spam samples collected through researching the entire web. Typically, Anti-Spam products also have options to White-list and Blacklist email addresses. The Emails that arrive from the White-listed email addresses are sent directly to the User's inbox, while the emails that arrive from Blacklist emails addresses are scanned and sent to a quarantine database or discarded.
However, a large ISP can receive millions of emails each day, each of which must be scanned. Other large organizations may receive thousand of emails each day. On an average each mail takes from 15 milliseconds to 400 milliseconds to scan for such spam content. Thus consumes a huge amount of email server time and can in turn create a loss in the productivity of the organization. A need arises for a technique by which the server resources needed to scan incoming emails can be reduced, which will improve server throughput and reduce costs.
A method, system, and computer program product for scanning incoming emails reduces the server resources needed, which improves server throughput and reduces costs.
A method for processing incoming email messages comprised the steps of scanning incoming email messages to obtain an address of a sender of each incoming email message and to determine whether the email message is spam, for each email message that is determined to be spam, incrementing a count of email messages that are spam for a sender of the email message, determining that a count of email messages that are spam for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold, and thereafter, discarding all incoming email messages from the sender for which the count of email messages that are spam for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold without scanning the email messages to determine whether they are spam.
The method may further comprise the step of in response to determining that a count of email messages that are spam for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold, placing an email address of the sender in a spam list. The discarding step may comprise the steps of comparing an email address of a sender of an incoming email message with email addresses in the spam list, and discarding the email message if the email address of the sender of the incoming email message is found in the spam list. The incrementing step may be performed for a period of time. Email addresses may be added to the spam list at an end of the period of time.
The method may further comprise the steps of determining that a count of email messages that are clean for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold, and thereafter, sending to recipient inboxes all incoming email messages from the sender for which the count of email messages that are clean for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold without scanning the email messages to determine whether they are spam. The method of claim 6, may further comprise the step of in response to determining that a count of email messages that are clean for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold, placing an email address of the sender in a clean list. The sending step may comprise the steps of comparing an email address of a sender of an incoming email message with email addresses in the clean list, and sending the email message to a recipient inbox if the email address of the sender of the incoming email message is found in the clean list. The incrementing step may be performed for a period of time. Email addresses may be added to the clean list at an end of the period of time.
The method may further comprise the steps of in response to determining that a count of email messages that are spam for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold, placing an email address of the sender in a spam list, and in response to determining that a count of email messages that are clean for a sender of an email message has exceeded a threshold, placing an email address of the sender in a clean list. The discarding step may comprise the steps of comparing an email address of a sender of an incoming email message with email addresses in the spam list, and discarding the email message if the email address of the sender of the incoming email message is found in the spam list, and the sending step may comprise the steps of comparing an email address of a sender of an incoming email message with email addresses in the clean list, and sending the email message to a recipient inbox if the email address of the sender of the incoming email message is found in the clean list. The incrementing steps may be performed for a period of time. Email addresses may be added to the spam list and the clean list at an end of the period of time.
The details of the present invention, both as to its structure and operation, can best be understood by referring to the accompanying drawings, in which like reference numbers and designations refer to like elements.
A method, system, and computer program product for scanning incoming emails reduces the server resources needed, which improves server throughput and reduces costs.
A method, system, and computer program product for scanning incoming emails reduces the server resources needed, which improves server throughput and reduces costs. An example of such a process 100 is shown in
In step 104, email scanner 208 counts the spam/clean characteristics of the scanned email messages 204 and stores the resulting counts in a security database 210. An example of security database 210 is shown in
In step 106, when any count value in the marked as ***SPAM*** column 304 or the quarantined column 306 exceeds a threshold, the email address of the row in which that count is present is placed on a spam list 212. Likewise, in step 108, when any count value in the clean emails column 308 exceeds a threshold, the email address of the row in which that count is present is placed on a clean list 214. Then, in step 110, email scanner 208 no longer performs a full scan of email messages that are received that have sender email addresses that are in either the spam list 212 or the clean list 214. Rather, the email message is handled appropriately without a full scan. Email scanner 208 still scans all incoming email messages 204 to obtain the email address of the sender of each message. Email scanner 208 then checks the spam list 212 and the clean list 214 to determine whether that email address is present in either list. If the email address of the sender of the message is present in the spam list 212, the message is simply discarded. If the email address of the sender of the message is present in the clean list 214, the message is delivered to the inbox 216 of the recipient without a full scan being performed.
Typically, the counts are compiled for a predefined period, such as 24 hours. Those sender email addresses that have exceeded either the spam or the clean thresholds within this period have been placed on either the spam list 212 or the clean list 214. For all other email addresses, at the end of each period, the counts may be reset, or the entry or entries in security database 210 may be deleted. The counts may be compiled with the same period for all entries in security database 210. For example, all counts in security database 210 may be reset every day at the same time, or all entries in security database 210 may be deleted every day at the same time. Alternatively, the counts may be compiled with different periods or with periods of different lengths for each entry in security database 210. For example, the counts for each entry may be reset 24 hours after the last reset of that entry, or the entry may be deleted 24 hours after the creation of that entry. In this way, full scanning of email messages from spam email addresses and from clean email addresses can be avoided, reducing the processing load on email scanner 208, and thus the processing load on email server 202.
Likewise, the spam list 212 and/or the clean list 214 may be periodically deleted or updated, either with a period similar to that used for compiling the counts, or with a period greater than that used for compiling the counts. This allows the spam list 212 and/or the clean list 214 to be dynamically updated, to capture changes in behavior of various sender email addresses.
The period for compiling the counts, as well as the spam and clean thresholds are typically determined by an administrator of email server 202, but may also be determined by a vendor of the email processing software, or by a user of the system.
Finally, in optional step 112, email addresses included in spam list 212 may be monitored for a greater period of time to find that email addresses that send the greatest amounts of spam. These email addresses may be listed on a Highest **SPAMMERS** list 218, which may be maintained permanently and/or replicated to other email servers to have a common settings and cut down the scanning time for such unwanted emails by email servers.
Administration of the email system may be improved by implementing Security Auditing for the email system Administrator. For example, an ALERT email message may be sent to the Administrator containing information about the new email addresses added to the Security Database. Subsequently, additional ALERT email messages may be sent about email addresses added to the spam list, the clean list, and the Highest **SPAMMERS** list during a specified time configured by the Administrator. For example, after every 24 hours, ALERT email messages may be sent to the Administrator, which include the list of new email addresses added to the spam list, the clean list, and the Highest **SPAMMERS** list.
An exemplary block diagram of a email server 400, in which the present invention may be implemented, is shown in
Input/output circuitry 404 provides the capability to input data to, or output data from, email server 400. For example, input/output circuitry may include input devices, such as keyboards, mice, touchpads, trackballs, scanners, etc., output devices, such as video adapters, monitors, printers, etc., and input/output devices, such as, modems, etc. Network adapter 406 interfaces email server 400 with Internet/intranet 410. Internet/intranet 410 may include one or more standard local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN), such as Ethernet, Token Ring, the Internet, or a private or proprietary LAN/WAN.
Memory 408 stores program instructions that are executed by, and data that are used and processed by, CPUs 402A-N to perform the functions of email server 400. Memory 408 may include electronic memory devices, such as random-access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), programmable read-only memory (PROM), electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM), flash memory, etc., and electro-mechanical memory, such as magnetic disk drives, tape drives, optical disk drives, etc., which may use an integrated drive electronics (IDE) interface, or a variation or enhancement thereof, such as enhanced IDE (EIDE) or ultra direct memory access (UDMA), or a small computer system interface (SCSI) based interface, or a variation or enhancement thereof, such as fast-SCSI, wide-SCSI, fast and wide-SCSI, etc., or a fiber channel-arbitrated loop (FC-AL) interface.
In the example shown in
As shown in
It is important to note that while the present invention has been described in the context of a fully functioning data processing system, those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that the processes of the present invention are capable of being distributed in the form of a computer readable medium of instructions and a variety of forms and that the present invention applies equally regardless of the particular type of signal bearing media actually used to carry out the distribution. Examples of computer readable media include recordable-type media such as floppy disc, a hard disk drive, RAM, and CD-ROM's, as well as transmission-type media, such as digital and analog communications links.
Although specific embodiments of the present invention have been described, it will be understood by those of skill in the art that there are other embodiments that are equivalent to the described embodiments. Accordingly, it is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited by the specific illustrated embodiments, but only by the scope of the appended claims.
This Application is a continuation (and claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. §120) of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/598,728, filed Nov. 14, 2006, now issued as U.S. Patent No. 8,577,968, and entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR HANDLING UNWANTED EMAIL MESSAGES. The disclosure of the prior Application is considered part of and is incorporated by reference in its entirety in the disclosure of this Application.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5987610 | Franczek et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6460050 | Pace et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6779021 | Bates et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6931433 | Ralston et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
7194515 | Kirsch | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7281269 | Sievers et al. | Oct 2007 | B1 |
7299361 | Kim et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7366761 | Murray et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7475118 | Leiba et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7500265 | Encinas et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
7506155 | Stewart et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7603422 | Murphy et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7606214 | Chandra Sekhar et al. | Oct 2009 | B1 |
7617285 | Hartmann | Nov 2009 | B1 |
7636716 | Cheng | Dec 2009 | B1 |
7689652 | Mishra et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7774413 | Costea et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7865561 | Kelly et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7882187 | Gammage et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7930351 | Daniell et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8577968 | Shinde et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
20020010757 | Granik et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020038347 | Maeda | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020059454 | Barrett et al. | May 2002 | A1 |
20020116641 | Mastrianni | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020147780 | Liu et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030023728 | Yaung | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030191969 | Katsikas | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030195937 | Kircher et al. | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20040172429 | Goguen | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040177271 | Arnold et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040181581 | Kosco | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040210640 | Chadwick et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040258044 | Girouard et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050015455 | Liu | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050021649 | Goodman et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050022008 | Goodman et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050044153 | Gross | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050044155 | Kaminski | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050064850 | Irlam et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050076084 | Loughmiller et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080855 | Murray | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080856 | Kirsch | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080857 | Kirsch | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050080860 | Daniell et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091319 | Kirsch | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050091321 | Daniell et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050108340 | Gleeson et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050114452 | Prakash | May 2005 | A1 |
20050188045 | Katsikas | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050204005 | Purcell et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050210116 | Samson | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050262209 | Yu | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060047760 | Encinas et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060075052 | Oostendorp | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060117387 | Gunsalus et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060168024 | Mehr et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168041 | Mishra et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060168046 | Qureshi | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060184632 | Marino et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060218232 | Kubala | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060277264 | Rainisto | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060288076 | Cowings et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070039051 | Duthie et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070088789 | Berman | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070185960 | Leiba et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080114843 | Shinde et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080250114 | Dubovsky et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080301235 | Mankiewicz | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20080307046 | Baek et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090094342 | Leiba et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090106367 | Banerjee et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20100005146 | Drako et al. | Jan 2010 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Jayashree Ravi, et al., “Personalized Email Management at Network Edges,” Wayne State University, Mar.-Apr. 2005, IEEE Internet Computing, Published by the IEEE Computer Society, copyright 2005 IEEE (7 pages). |
Mingjun Lan, et al., “Spam Filtering Based on Preference Ranking,” School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Proceedings of the 2005 The Fifth International Conference on Computer and Information Technology, copyright 2005 IEEE (5 pages). |
USPTO May 28, 2009 Nonfinal Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO Dec. 9, 2009 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO Mar. 25, 2010 Nonfinal Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO Sep. 17, 2010 Nonfinal Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO May 16, 2011 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO Sep. 16, 2011 Nonfinal Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO Jan. 23, 2012 Final Office Action from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
USPTO Jul. 11, 2013 Notice of Allowance from U.S. Appl. No. 11/598,728. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130346528 A1 | Dec 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11598728 | Nov 2006 | US |
Child | 14010527 | US |