System, method, and computer program product for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9077684
  • Patent Number
    9,077,684
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, August 6, 2008
    16 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, July 7, 2015
    9 years ago
Abstract
A system, method, and computer program product are provided for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy. In use, a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail message is identified. Additionally, it is determined whether the electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in response to the predetermined event. Furthermore, a reaction is performed, based on the determination.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to processing electronic mail messages, and more particularly to policy-based electronic mail message processing.


BACKGROUND

Electronic mail messages have conventionally been utilized for communicating data over a network. Such electronic mail messages have oftentimes been processed based on policies, for ensuring the electronic mail messages comply with such policies. However, traditional policy-based electronic mail message processing has exhibited various limitations. Just by way of example, electronic mail messages have generally been limited to being processed based on security policies for ensuring security with respect to the electronic mail messages.


There is thus a need for addressing these and/or other issues associated with the prior art.


SUMMARY

A system, method, and computer program product are provided for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy. In use, a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail message is identified. Additionally, it is determined whether the electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in response to the predetermined event. Furthermore, a reaction is performed, based on the determination.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS


FIG. 1 illustrates a network architecture, in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 2 shows a representative hardware environment that may be associated with the servers and/or clients of FIG. 1, in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 3 shows a method for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with one embodiment.



FIG. 4A shows a client-side system for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with another embodiment.



FIG. 4B shows a server-side system for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with yet another embodiment.



FIG. 5 shows a method for reacting based on a determination of whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with still yet another embodiment.



FIGS. 6A-6C show graphical user interfaces (GUIs) for initiating a determination of whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with another embodiment.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION


FIG. 1 illustrates a network architecture 100, in accordance with one embodiment. As shown, a plurality of networks 102 is provided. In the context of the present network architecture 100, the networks 102 may each take any form including, but not limited to a local area network (LAN), a wireless network, a wide area network (WAN) such as the Internet, peer-to-peer network, etc.


Coupled to the networks 102 are servers 104 which are capable of communicating over the networks 102. Also coupled to the networks 102 and the servers 104 is a plurality of clients 106. Such servers 104 and/or clients 106 may each include a desktop computer, lap-top computer, hand-held computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant (PDA), peripheral (e.g. printer, etc.), any component of a computer, and/or any other type of logic. In order to facilitate communication among the networks 102, at least one gateway 108 is optionally coupled therebetween.



FIG. 2 shows a representative hardware environment that may be associated with the servers 104 and/or clients 106 of FIG. 1, in accordance with one embodiment. Such figure illustrates a typical hardware configuration of a workstation in accordance with one embodiment having a central processing unit 210, such as a microprocessor, and a number of other units interconnected via a system bus 212.


The workstation shown in FIG. 2 includes a Random Access Memory (RAM) 214, Read Only Memory (ROM) 216, an I/O adapter 218 for connecting peripheral devices such as disk storage units 220 to the bus 212, a user interface adapter 222 for connecting a keyboard 224, a mouse 226, a speaker 228, a microphone 232, and/or other user interface devices such as a touch screen (not shown) to the bus 212, communication adapter 234 for connecting the workstation to a communication network 235 (e.g., a data processing network) and a display adapter 236 for connecting the bus 212 to a display device 238.


The workstation may have resident thereon any desired operating system. It will be appreciated that an embodiment may also be implemented on platforms and operating systems other than those mentioned. One embodiment may be written using JAVA, C, and/or C++ language, or other programming languages, along with an object oriented programming methodology. Object oriented programming (OOP) has become increasingly used to develop complex applications.


Of course, the various embodiments set forth herein may be implemented utilizing hardware, software, or any desired combination thereof. For that matter, any type of logic may be utilized which is capable of implementing the various functionality set forth herein.



FIG. 3 shows a method 300 for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with one embodiment. As an option, the method 300 may be carried out in the context of the architecture and environment of FIGS. 1 and/or 2. Of course, however, the method 300 may be carried out in any desired environment.


As shown in operation 302, a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail (email) message is identified. With respect to the present description, the email message may include any mail message capable of being electronically communicated. For example, the email message may be capable of being communicated over a network utilizing an email messaging application (e.g. Microsoft® Outlook®, etc.).


Further, the predetermined event associated with the email message may include a request, command, etc. Such request, command, etc. may be received from a user of a client device utilized to generate, view, etc. the email message. As another option, the request, command, etc. may be received from an administrator, such as an administrator (e.g. of a server device via which the email message is communicated from a first client device to a second client device, etc.).


For example, in one embodiment, the predetermined event associated with the email message may include a request, command, etc. to send the email message (e.g. over the network to a designated recipient). As an option, the request, command, etc. to send the email message may include a user selection of an option to send the email message. The user selection may be performed utilizing the email messaging application, for example.


In another embodiment, the predetermined event associated with the email message may include a request, command, etc. to determine whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy. For example, the request, command, etc. may include a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy (e.g. where such etiquette policy is associated with a minimum threshold for etiquette of the email message). Such option may include a button included in a graphical user interface (GUI), just by way of example.


The option may be selected during composition of the email message, and thus while a window displaying contents of the email message is displayed. In another embodiment, the option may be selected after composition of the email message, and thus without contents of the email message being displayed. For example, the option may be selected with respect to a previously drafted (e.g. and not yet sent) email message, such as an email message stored in a drafts folder of the email messaging application.


To this end, indicia may be displayed, such that the predetermined event may include selection of the indicia (e.g. by a user). In various embodiments, the indicia may include a send icon, a check icon (e.g. for initiating the determination of whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy), etc., as noted above. In this way, the predetermined event may optionally be manually generated. For example, the predetermined event may include an on-demand event.


Of course, as another option, the predetermined event may be automatically generated. Just by way of example, in one embodiment, the predetermined event may include receipt of the email message over a network. As an option, the predetermined event may include receipt of the email message at a client device to which the email message is destined. As another option, the predetermined event may include receipt of the email message at a server device, such as a server device utilized for communicating the email message from a first client device to a second client device.


While various embodiments of the predetermined event have been described above, it should be noted that the predetermined event may include any type of event predetermined for the email message. Moreover, in various embodiments, the predetermined event may be identified by a client device capable of being utilized to send the email message, a client device that received the email message, a server device that received the email message, etc. For example, the predetermined event may be identified by an agent, plug-in, and/or any other application installed on any of such devices.


In addition, as shown in operation 304, it is determined whether the email message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in response to the predetermined event. Accordingly, in response to the identification of the predetermined event, it may be determined whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. To this end, the determination may optionally be carried out at any of the client devices and/or the server device described above. Just by way of example, the determination may be carried out utilizing an application situated on any of such devices.


With respect to the present description, the etiquette policy may include any policy capable of being utilized for determining whether etiquette of the email message is compliant with a predefined etiquette. For example, the policy may include rules indicating the predefined etiquette. In this way, portions (e.g. a body, attachment, header, etc.) of the email message may be compared with the etiquette policy (e.g. with rules of the etiquette policy) for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.


In one embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a size of the email message. For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to exceed a predefined threshold size (e.g. 1 megabyte, etc.). Thus, a size of the email message may be compared to the size indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In this way, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the size of the email message exceeds the size indicated by the etiquette policy.


In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a format of the email message (e.g. a format of content of the email message). For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to, or is optionally only allowed to, include at least one predefined format. As another example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to, or is optionally only allowed to, include at least one predefined format based on a recipient of the email message. The format may include plain text, hypertext markup language (HTML), rich text format (RTF), etc. To this end, a format of the email message may be compared to the format indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. Accordingly, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the format of the email message does not comply with the format indicated by the etiquette policy.


In yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a disclaimer included in the email message. As an option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a disclaimer. As another option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a predefined disclaimer, a disclaimer with a predefined format, etc. Thus, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the email message does not include a disclaimer as indicated by the etiquette policy.


In still yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a signature (e.g. digital signature, etc.) of the email message. For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a signature. As another option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is required to include a predefined signature, a signature with a predefined format, etc. Thus, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the email message does not include a signature as indicated by the etiquette policy.


In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a font of the email message (e.g. a font of text included in the email message). Just by way of example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to, or is optionally only allowed to, include at least one predefined font type, font size, etc. Accordingly, a font of text included in the email message may be compared to the font indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. It may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the font of text included in the email message does not comply with the font indicated by the etiquette policy.


In yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a number of recipients of the email message. For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to be sent to more than a predefined threshold number of recipients (e.g. 10 recipients, etc.). Thus, a number of recipients of the email message (e.g. as designated by a header of the email message, etc.) may be compared to the threshold number of recipients indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In this way, it may optionally be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the number of recipients of the email message exceeds the threshold number of recipients indicated by the etiquette policy.


In still yet another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a distribution list (e.g. collection of recipients) utilized by the email message. As an option, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to be addressed to more than a predefined number of distribution lists. A number of distribution lists utilized by the email message (e.g. as designated by a header of the email message, etc.) may optionally be compared to the predefined number of distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. As another option, it may be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the number of distribution lists utilized by the email message exceeds the predefined number of distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy.


In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to a number of attachments and/or a type of attachment of the email message (e.g. included in the email message). For example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to include more than a predefined number of attachments (e.g. 5 attachments, etc.), such that it may be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the number of attachments of the email message exceeds the predefined number of attachments indicated by the etiquette policy. As another example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is not allowed to include, or is optionally only allowed to include, a predefined type of attachment (e.g. an executable attachment, etc.), such that it may be determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy if the type of attachment of the email message is not compliant with the type of attachment indicated by the etiquette policy. In another embodiment, the etiquette policy may relate to whether multiple attachments of the email message are compressed as a zip file.


It should be noted that while various etiquette of the etiquette policy has been described above, such etiquette and/or any other etiquette may be included in the etiquette policy in combination, etc. Just by way of example, the etiquette policy may include a rule indicating that the email message is only allowed to have a predefined format and a predefined recipient. Of course, the etiquette policy may be configured as desired (e.g. by an administrator, etc.).


Moreover, a reaction is performed, based on the determination, as shown in operation 306. The reaction may optionally include any number of actions, such as a single action, a combination of actions, etc. Such actions may include the reactions described below, for example.


For example, if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy, a first reaction may be performed. In one embodiment, the reaction may include categorizing (e.g. flagging, etc.) the email message as compliant, if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In another embodiment, the reaction may include allowing the email message to be transmitted (e.g. to recipients designated by the email message), if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In yet another embodiment, the reaction may include reporting the compliance of the email message (e.g. the report created based on an event and/or data generated in response to the compliance of the email message), if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.


In yet another embodiment the reaction may include logging a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. a compliance of the email message) if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy. In still yet another embodiment, the reaction may include sending an event and/or any other data indicative of the email message, a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. indicative of a compliance of the email message), etc. to a management server, if it is determined that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.


As another example, if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy, a second reaction that is different from the first reaction may be performed. In one embodiment, the reaction may include preventing the email message from being transmitted (e.g. to recipients designated by the email message), if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. Just by way of example, the email message may be quarantined, deleted, etc., if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy.


In another embodiment, the reaction may include categorizing the electronic at non-compliant, if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. In yet another embodiment, the reaction may include reporting the email message (e.g. the report created based on an event and/or data generated in response to the non-compliance of the email message), if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. For example, an information technology (IT) department of an organization that is a source or recipient of the email message may be notified, an administrator (e.g. IT administrator) may notified, a manager (e.g. senior management) may be notified, etc.


In still yet another embodiment, the reaction may include sending an event and/or any other data indicative of the email message, a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. indicative of a non-compliance of the email message), etc. to a management server, if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy. In another embodiment, the reaction may include logging the email message, a result of the determination of whether the email message is compliant (e.g. a non-compliance of the email message), etc., if it is determined that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy.


To this end, it may optionally be ensured that the email message is only transmitted if such email message complies with an etiquette policy. Ensuring such compliance may further ensure that a reputation of a sender of the email message, an organization employing the sender, etc. is maintained at a desired level (e.g. by preventing transmittal of non-compliant email messages based on which a recipient may judge a reputation of the sender, organization, etc.), in various embodiments.


More illustrative information will now be set forth regarding various optional architectures and features with which the foregoing technique may or may not be implemented, per the desires of the user. It should be strongly noted that the following information is set forth for illustrative purposes and should not be construed as limiting in any manner. Any of the following features may be optionally incorporated with or without the exclusion of other features described.



FIG. 4A shows a client-side system 400 for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with another embodiment. As an option, the client-side system 400 may be implemented in the context of the architecture and environment of FIGS. 1-3. Of course, however, the client-side system 400 may be implemented in any desired environment. It should also be noted that the aforementioned definitions may apply during the present description.


As shown, the client-side system 400 includes a client device (hereinafter referred to as the client device 400). The client device 400 may include any client device capable of determining whether an email message is compliant with an etiquette policy 406, and reacting based on such determination. For example, the client device 400 may include a device utilized by a user to compose the email message, send the email message to a recipient device (e.g. over a network), etc. For example, the client device 400 may include a sending mail client or a receiving mail client. As an option, the client device 400 may include any of the client devices described above with respect to FIGS. 1 and/or 2.


In addition, the client device 400 includes an email application 402. The email application 402 may include any program, code, etc. that may be utilized for managing the email message. In various embodiments, the email application 402 may be used for composing the email message, sending the email message to a recipient device, receiving the email message, etc.


Further, the client device 400 includes an etiquette policy checking and enforcement agent 404 (hereinafter referred to as the agent 404). With respect to the present embodiment, the agent 404 may include a module (e.g. computer code) for determining whether an email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, and reacting based on such determination.


In one embodiment, the agent 404 may identify a predetermined event associated with the email message. For example, the agent 404 may identify receipt of the email message. As another example, the agent 404 may identify user selection of an option to send the email message to a recipient. As yet another example, the agent 404 may identify user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. For example, the user may select the option for a selected plurality of email messages, such that the selected email messages are subject to the determination and any reaction based on the determination.


Such predetermined event may optionally be identified based on monitoring performed by the agent 404 for the predetermined event. As another option, the predetermined event may be identified in response to a notification received from the email application 402 indicating occurrence of the predetermined event.


In another embodiment, the agent 404 may determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, in response to the predetermined event. For example, the agent 404 may compare characteristics of the email message to the etiquette policy 406 for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. The characteristics of the email message may include a size of the email message, a format of the email message, a disclaimer associated with the email message, etc.


As an option, the etiquette policy 406 may be included in a set of etiquette policies. Thus, the agent 404 may determine whether the email message is compliant with each etiquette policy in the set of etiquette policies. As another option, the etiquette policy 406 may be locally stored on the client device 400. As yet another option, the etiquette policy 406, and optionally any updates thereto, may be received by the client device 400 from a centralized and/or distributed server, such as an etiquette policy management server, over a network. Of course, however, the etiquette policy 406 may be received by the client device 400 in any desired manner.


In yet another embodiment, the agent 404 may react, based on the determination of whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. For example, if the agent 404 determines that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may allow the email message to be sent a recipient designated by the email message. As another example, the agent 404 may report the compliance of the email message to a user of the client device 400, an administrator of a remote server device (not shown), etc.


Just by way of example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, the agent 404 may allow the email message to be sent in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406. As another example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may report the compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406.


However, if the agent 404 determines that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may prevent sending of the email message. As another option, the agent 404 may report the non-compliance of the email message to a user of the client device 400, an administrator of a remote server device (not shown), etc. For example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, the agent 404 may prevent the email message from being sent in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 406. As another example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 406, the agent 404 may report the non-compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the agent 404 that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 406.



FIG. 4B shows a server-side system 450 for determining whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with yet another embodiment. As an option, the server-side system 450 may be implemented in the context of the architecture and environment of FIGS. 1-3. Of course, however, the server-side system 450 may be implemented in any desired environment. It should also be noted that the aforementioned definitions may apply during the present description.


As shown, the server-side system 450 includes a serve device (hereinafter referred to as the server device 450). The server device 450 may include any server device capable of determining whether an email message is compliant with an etiquette policy 456, and reacting based on such determination. For example, the server device 450 may include a device utilized to send the email message from a first client device to a second client device designated by the email message, etc. As another example, the server device 450 (e.g. mail server) may include either a sending mail server or a receiving mail server. If the email message is sent across different organizations (e.g. networks, etc.), there may be multiple mail servers involved in the email message transmission/reception. As an option, the server device 450 may include any of the server devices described above with respect to FIGS. 1 and/or 2.


In addition, the server device 450 includes an email application 452. The email application 452 may include any program, code, etc. that may be utilized for managing the email message. In various embodiments, the email application 452 may be used for sending the email message to a recipient device, receiving the email message from a client device, storing the email message, etc. As an option, the email application 452 may manage (e.g. store, etc.) email messages associated with a plurality of email messaging applications of various client devices (e.g. such as the client device 400 of FIG. 4).


Further, the server device 450 includes an etiquette policy checking and enforcement module 454 (hereinafter referred to as the module 454). With respect to the present embodiment, the module 454 may include computer code, a plug-in, a component, etc. for determining whether an email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, and reacting based on such determination.


In one embodiment, the module 454 may identify a predetermined event associated with the email message. For example, the module 454 may identify receipt of the email message. As another example, the module 454 may identified a user (e.g. administrator) selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456. For example, the user may select the option for email messages received within a designated period of time (e.g. a particular month, day, etc.), for emails received with respect to designated email applications of at least one client device (e.g. emails communicated to the client device via the server device 450, emails communicated from the client device via the server device 450), etc. In this way, the user may optionally be allowed to select a plurality of emails for being subject to the determination of whether such emails comply with the etiquette policy 456, and thus subject to a reaction based on the determination.


Such predetermined event may optionally be identified based on monitoring performed by the module 454 for the predetermined event. As another option, the predetermined event may be identified in response to a notification received from the email application 452 indicating occurrence of the predetermined event.


In another embodiment, the module 454 may determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, in response to the predetermined event. For example, the module 454 may compare characteristics of the email message to the etiquette policy 456 for determining whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456. The characteristics of the email message may include a size of the email message, a format of the email message, a disclaimer associated with the email message, etc.


As an option, the etiquette policy 456 may be included in a set of etiquette policies. Thus, the module 454 may determine whether the email message is compliant with each etiquette policy in the set of etiquette policies. As another option, the etiquette policy 456 may be locally stored on the server device 450. As yet another option, the etiquette policy 456 may be received by the server device 450 from a centralized and/or distributed server, such as an etiquette policy management server, over a network. As yet another option, the etiquette policy 456 may be configured at the server device 450. For example, the server device 450 may be utilized for distributing the etiquette policy 456 to a plurality of other devices (e.g. such as the client device 400 of FIG. 4).


In yet another embodiment, the module 454 may react, based on the determination of whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456. For example, if the module 454 determines that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may allow the email message to be sent a recipient designated by the email message. As another example, the module 454 may report the compliance of the email message to an administrator associated with the server device 450, a client device from which the email message was received (not shown), etc.


Just by way of example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may report the compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the module 454 that the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456.


However, if the module 454 determines that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may prevent sending of the email message. As another option, the module 454 may report the non-compliance of the email message to an administrator associated with the server device 450, a client device from which the email message was received (not shown), etc. For example, if the predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy 456, the module 454 may report the non-compliance of the email message to the user in response to a determination by the module 454 that the email message is not compliant with the etiquette policy 456.



FIG. 5 shows a method 500 for reacting based on a determination of whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with still yet another embodiment. As an option, the method 500 may be carried out in the context of the architecture and environment of FIGS. 1-4B. Of course, however, the method 500 may be carried out in any desired environment. Again, it should be noted that the aforementioned definitions may apply during the present description.


As shown in decision 502, it is determined whether a predetermined event associated with an email message is identified. The email message may include any email message capable of being created, managed, sent, etc. by an email application. If it is determined that the predetermined event is not identified, the method 500 continues to wait for a predetermined event associated with an email message to be identified.


If, however, it is determined that the predetermined event is identified, an etiquette policy is applied to the email message. Note operation 504. The etiquette policy may be included in a set of etiquette policies. Thus, as an option, each of the etiquette policies in the set of etiquette policies may be applied to the email message. Applying the etiquette policy to the email message may include comparing the etiquette policy to the email message. For example, rules of the etiquette policy may be compared with characteristics of the email message.


Additionally, it is determined whether the email message complies with the etiquette policy, as shown in decision 506. For example, the determination may be made based on the comparison of the etiquette policy to the email message. In this way, it may optionally be determined whether the characteristics of the email message comply with the rules of the etiquette policy.


If it is determined that the email message complies with the etiquette policy, transmission of the email message is allowed. Note operation 508. As an option, the email message may be automatically transmitted if it is determined that the email message complies with the etiquette policy. Just by way of example, if the identified predetermined event (see decision 502) includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, the email message may be automatically transmitted in response to a determination that the email message complies with the etiquette policy.


Of course, as another option, the email message may only be transmitted after a manual selection for such transmittal, after it is determined that the email message complies with the etiquette policy. For example, if the identified predetermined event (see decision 502) does not include a user selection of an option to send the email message (e.g. includes instead a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy), the email message may only be transmitted after a selection by the user of the option to send the email. The email may optionally be flagged for indicating the compliance of the email with the etiquette policy, such that the email may be automatically transmitted in response to a user selection of an option to send the email message.


If it is determined that the email message does not comply with the etiquette policy, an action is taken. Note operation 510. In one embodiment, the action may include preventing transmittal of the email message. For example, if the identified predetermined event includes a user selection of an option to send the email message, automatic transmittal of the email message in response to such user selection may be prevented. As another example, if the identified predetermined event does not include a user selection of an option to send the email message (e.g. includes instead a user selection of an option to determine whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy), any transmittal of the email message based on a subsequent user selection of an option to send the email message may be prevented.



FIGS. 6A-6C show graphical user interfaces (GUIs) 600-620 for initiating a determination (i.e. in an on-demand manner) of whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy, in accordance with another embodiment. As an option, the GUIs 600-620 may be implemented in the context of the architecture and environment of FIGS. 1-5. Of course, however, the 600-620 may be implemented in any desired environment. Yet again, it should be noted that the aforementioned definitions may apply during the present description.


With respect to the GUIs 600-620 shown in FIGS. 6A-6B, it should be noted that the GUIs 600-620 may be utilized for generated a predetermined event, in response to which a determination of whether an electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy may be made. For example, as shown in the GUI 600 of FIG. 6A, a plurality of mail boxes 602 may be displayed for selection thereof. Each of the mail boxes may 602 be associated with a different mail application of a client device. Thus, the GUI 600 may be displayed on a sever device that manages the various mail applications of client devices. Further, each of the mail boxes 602 may store email messages received by, generated by, etc. the associated mail application.


In one embodiment, at least one of the mail boxes 602 may be selected. For example, the mail box 602 may be selected by a user of the device via which the GUI 600 is displayed. As an option, the device may include a server device utilized by an organization, and the user may include an administrator of the organization.


In another embodiment, an option 604 to determine whether email messages included in the mail box 602 comply with an etiquette policy may be displayed for selection. The user of the device via which the GUI 600 is displayed may select the option 604, for example. Selection of such option 604 may include a predetermined event, such that it may be determined whether the email messages included in the mail box 602 are compliant with the etiquette policy.


As shown in the GUI 610 of FIG. 6B, contents of an email message are displayed. For example, the contents of the email message may be displayed during generation of the email message, editing of the email message, viewing of the email message, etc. Such contents may optionally include a designated recipient of the email message, a source of the email message, a body of the email message, etc.


Additionally, a selectable option 612 to determine whether the email message complies with an etiquette policy may displayed in the GUI 610 with the contents of the email message. The user of the device via which the GUI 600 is displayed may select the option 612, for example. Selection of such option 612 may include a predetermined event, such that it may be determined whether the email message is compliant with the etiquette policy.


As shown in the GUI 620 of FIG. 6C, a plurality of email messages 622 are displayed. In one embodiment, the email messages 622 may be displayed in response to selection of one of the mail boxes 602 of FIG. 6A. In another embodiment, the email messages 622 may be displayed automatically upon start-up of an email application of a device on which the GUI 620 is displayed (e.g. where the email messages 622 are included in an inbox of the email application), or upon selection of any other folder of the email application that stores email messages.


At least one of the email messages 622 may be selected (as shown, the three shaded email messages are selected). For example, a user of the device via which the GUI 620 is displayed may select the email messages 622. Upon selection of the email messages 622, a drop down menu of options may be displayed via the GUI 620.


As shown, one of such options may include a selectable option 624 to determine whether the selected email messages comply with an etiquette policy. Accordingly, the user of the device via which the GUI 620 is displayed may select the option 624. Selection of such option 624 may include a predetermined event, such that it may be determined whether the selected email messages are compliant with the etiquette policy.


While various embodiments have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. Thus, the breadth and scope of a preferred embodiment should not be limited by any of the above-described exemplary embodiments, but should be defined only in accordance with the following claims and their equivalents.

Claims
  • 1. A computer program product embodied on a non- transitory medium, comprising: computer code for identifying a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail message;computer code for determining whether the electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy that designates a predefined number of acceptable distribution lists for the electronic mail message, wherein determining whether the electronic message is compliant with the etiquette policy includes comparing a number of distribution lists utilized by the electronic mail message to the predefined number of acceptable distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy; andcomputer code for reacting, based on the determination, wherein if the electronic mail message complies with the etiquette policy then it is permitted to be transmitted to a next destination in a network, and wherein if the electronic mail message does not comply with the etiquette policy, it is quarantined and prevented from reaching the next destination.
  • 2. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the determining is carried out utilizing an application situated on a client device.
  • 3. The computer program product of claim 1, and further comprising computer code for displaying indicia, wherein the predetermined event includes a selection of the indicia.
  • 4. The computer program product of claim 3, wherein the indicia includes a send icon.
  • 5. The computer program product of claim 3, wherein the indicia includes a check icon.
  • 6. The computer program product of claim 2, wherein an update for the etiquette policy is received locally at the client device.
  • 7. The computer program product of claim 2, wherein an update for the etiquette policy is received at the client device from a management server over a network.
  • 8. The computer program product of claim 1, and further comprising computer code for allowing a user to select a plurality of electronic mail messages for being subject to the determining and reacting.
  • 9. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the determining is carried out at a server device.
  • 10. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein an update for the etiquette policy is received locally at that server device.
  • 11. The computer program product of claim 9, wherein an update for the etiquette policy is received from a different server including a management server over a network.
  • 12. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the predetermined event includes a receipt of the electronic mail message over a network.
  • 13. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the predetermined event includes a command received from an administrator.
  • 14. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the etiquette policy relates to a size of the electronic mail message.
  • 15. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the etiquette policy relates to a format of the electronic mail message.
  • 16. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the etiquette policy relates to a disclaimer included with the electronic mail message.
  • 17. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the etiquette policy relates to a signature of the electronic mail message.
  • 18. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the etiquette policy relates to a number of recipients of the electronic mail message.
  • 19. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the etiquette policy relates to at least one of a distribution list utilized by the electronic mail message, a type of attachment of the electronic mail message, a number of attachments of the electronic mail message, and a font of the electronic mail message.
  • 20. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the reacting includes at least one of quarantining the electronic mail message, deleting the electronic mail message, categorizing the electronic mail message, preventing the electronic mail message from being transmitted, and reporting the electronic mail message.
  • 21. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the reacting includes sending at least one of an event and data to a management server indicating a result of the determination.
  • 22. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the reacting includes notifying at least one of an information technology (IT) department, an IT administrator, and senior management.
  • 23. The computer program product of claim 1, wherein the reacting includes logging a result of the determination.
  • 24. A method, comprising: identifying, at a server that includes a processor, a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail message generated by a first client device;determining whether the electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy that designates a predefined number of acceptable distribution lists for the electronic mail message, wherein determining whether the electronic message is compliant with the etiquette policy includes comparing a number of distribution lists utilized by the electronic mail message to the predefined number of acceptable distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy; andreacting, based on the determination, wherein if the electronic mail message complies with the etiquette policy then it is permitted to be transmitted to a second client device in a network, and wherein if the electronic mail message does not comply with the etiquette policy, it is quarantined and prevented from reaching the second client device.
  • 25. A system, comprising: a processor; anda memory coupled to the processor, wherein the system is configured for: identifying a predetermined event associated with an electronic mail message,determining whether the electronic mail message is compliant with an etiquette policy that designates a predefined number of acceptable distribution lists for the electronic mail message, wherein determining whether the electronic message is compliant with the etiquette policy includes comparing a number of distribution lists utilized by the electronic mail message to the predefined number of acceptable distribution lists indicated by the etiquette policy, andreacting, based on the determination, wherein if the electronic mail message complies with the etiquette policy then it is permitted to be transmitted to a next destination in a network, and wherein if the electronic mail message does not comply with the etiquette policy, it is quarantined and prevented from reaching the next destination.
  • 26. The system of claim 25, wherein the processor is coupled to the memory via a bus.
US Referenced Citations (203)
Number Name Date Kind
4797447 Gergen et al. Jan 1989 A
5195086 Baumgartner et al. Mar 1993 A
5280527 Gullman et al. Jan 1994 A
5485068 Vaught Jan 1996 A
5572694 Uchino Nov 1996 A
5796948 Cohen Aug 1998 A
5845068 Winiger Dec 1998 A
5941915 Federle et al. Aug 1999 A
5987610 Franczek et al. Nov 1999 A
6073142 Geiger et al. Jun 2000 A
6081265 Nakayama et al. Jun 2000 A
6177932 Galdes et al. Jan 2001 B1
6240417 Eastwick et al. May 2001 B1
6367019 Ansell et al. Apr 2002 B1
6460050 Pace et al. Oct 2002 B1
6658566 Hazard Dec 2003 B1
6718367 Ayyadurai Apr 2004 B1
6741851 Lee et al. May 2004 B1
6820204 Desai et al. Nov 2004 B1
6934857 Bartleson et al. Aug 2005 B1
6957330 Hughes Oct 2005 B1
6961765 Terry Nov 2005 B2
7023816 Couillard Apr 2006 B2
7100123 Todd et al. Aug 2006 B1
7124197 Ocepek et al. Oct 2006 B2
7149778 Patel et al. Dec 2006 B1
7194623 Proudler et al. Mar 2007 B1
7194728 Sirota et al. Mar 2007 B1
7222305 Teplov et al. May 2007 B2
7257707 England et al. Aug 2007 B2
7278016 Detrick et al. Oct 2007 B1
7313615 Fitzpatrick et al. Dec 2007 B2
7346778 Guiter et al. Mar 2008 B1
7350074 Gupta et al. Mar 2008 B2
7350084 Abiko et al. Mar 2008 B2
7383433 Yeager et al. Jun 2008 B2
7424543 Rice, III Sep 2008 B2
7434543 Raukola et al. Oct 2008 B2
7437752 Heard et al. Oct 2008 B2
7441000 Boehringer et al. Oct 2008 B2
7461249 Pearson et al. Dec 2008 B1
7475420 Hernacki Jan 2009 B1
7484247 Rozman et al. Jan 2009 B2
7490355 Wong Feb 2009 B2
7497447 Musselman Mar 2009 B2
7506155 Stewart et al. Mar 2009 B1
7519984 Bhogal et al. Apr 2009 B2
7523484 Lum et al. Apr 2009 B2
7526654 Charbonneau Apr 2009 B2
7539857 Bartlett et al. May 2009 B2
7559080 Bhargavan et al. Jul 2009 B2
7581004 Jakobson Aug 2009 B2
7630986 Herz et al. Dec 2009 B1
7653811 Yagiura Jan 2010 B2
7660845 Fusari Feb 2010 B2
7661124 Ramanathan et al. Feb 2010 B2
7689563 Jacobson Mar 2010 B1
7725934 Kumar et al. May 2010 B2
7730040 Reasor et al. Jun 2010 B2
7742406 Muppala Jun 2010 B1
7847694 Lee et al. Dec 2010 B2
7877616 Abiko et al. Jan 2011 B2
7890587 Chebiyyam Feb 2011 B1
7940756 Duffy et al. May 2011 B1
8103727 Lin Jan 2012 B2
8111413 Nuggehalli et al. Feb 2012 B2
8151363 Smithson Apr 2012 B2
8181036 Nachenberg May 2012 B1
8199965 Basavapatna et al. Jun 2012 B1
8272058 Brennan Sep 2012 B2
8353053 Chebiyyam Jan 2013 B1
8446607 Zucker et al. May 2013 B2
8590002 Chebiyyam Nov 2013 B1
8621008 Chebiyyam Dec 2013 B2
8713468 Chebiyyam Apr 2014 B2
8893285 Zucker et al. Nov 2014 B2
8943158 Chebiyyam Jan 2015 B2
20010046069 Jones Nov 2001 A1
20020046275 Crosbie et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020046575 Hayes et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020083003 Halliday et al. Jun 2002 A1
20020099944 Bowlin Jul 2002 A1
20020157089 Patel et al. Oct 2002 A1
20030043039 Merrem et al. Mar 2003 A1
20030046679 Singleton Mar 2003 A1
20030065937 Watanabe et al. Apr 2003 A1
20030097583 Lacan et al. May 2003 A1
20030105979 Itoh et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030133443 Klinker et al. Jul 2003 A1
20030135744 Almeida Jul 2003 A1
20030177394 Dozortsev Sep 2003 A1
20030182435 Redlich et al. Sep 2003 A1
20030192033 Gartside et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030233421 Shibata et al. Dec 2003 A1
20040003255 Apvrille et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040006715 Skrepetos Jan 2004 A1
20040010686 Goh et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040027601 Ito et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040034794 Mayer et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040054928 Hall Mar 2004 A1
20040064732 Hall Apr 2004 A1
20040088433 Kaler et al. May 2004 A1
20040111482 Bourges-Waldegg et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040117802 Green Jun 2004 A1
20040146006 Jackson Jul 2004 A1
20040172557 Nakae et al. Sep 2004 A1
20040199555 Krachman Oct 2004 A1
20040199566 Carlson et al. Oct 2004 A1
20040199596 Nutkis Oct 2004 A1
20040230572 Omoigui Nov 2004 A1
20040255138 Nakae Dec 2004 A1
20050004359 Rai et al. Jan 2005 A1
20050033810 Malcolm Feb 2005 A1
20050038853 Blanc et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050044359 Eriksson et al. Feb 2005 A1
20050058285 Stein et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060643 Glass et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050116749 Pentakota et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050131990 Jewell Jun 2005 A1
20050132184 Palliyil et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050154885 Viscomi et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050166066 Ahuja et al. Jul 2005 A1
20050172140 Ide Aug 2005 A1
20050198285 Petit Sep 2005 A1
20050204009 Hazarika et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050216749 Brent Sep 2005 A1
20050262208 Haviv et al. Nov 2005 A1
20050272861 Qiao et al. Dec 2005 A1
20050275861 Ferlitsch Dec 2005 A1
20050289181 Deninger et al. Dec 2005 A1
20060005244 Garbow et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060010150 Shaath et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060010209 Hodgson Jan 2006 A1
20060010217 Sood Jan 2006 A1
20060021043 Kaneko et al. Jan 2006 A1
20060026593 Canning et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060031359 Clegg et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060039554 Fry Feb 2006 A1
20060041930 Hafeman et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060050879 Iizuka Mar 2006 A1
20060059548 Hildre et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060070089 Shoaib et al. Mar 2006 A1
20060075040 Chimaytelli Apr 2006 A1
20060075502 Edwards Apr 2006 A1
20060112166 Pettigrew et al. May 2006 A1
20060120526 Boucher et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060123413 Collet et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060123479 Kumar et al. Jun 2006 A1
20060132824 Aritomi Jun 2006 A1
20060168026 Keohane et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060190986 Mont et al. Aug 2006 A1
20060224589 Rowney et al. Oct 2006 A1
20060248252 Kharwa Nov 2006 A1
20070022285 Groth et al. Jan 2007 A1
20070028112 Mackelden et al. Feb 2007 A1
20070029744 Musselman Feb 2007 A1
20070033283 Brown Feb 2007 A1
20070064883 Rosenthal et al. Mar 2007 A1
20070074292 Mimatsu Mar 2007 A1
20070094394 Singh et al. Apr 2007 A1
20070101419 Dawson May 2007 A1
20070110089 Essafi et al. May 2007 A1
20070118904 Goodman et al. May 2007 A1
20070136593 Plavcan et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143472 Clark et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070143851 Nicodemus et al. Jun 2007 A1
20070174909 Burchett et al. Jul 2007 A1
20070198656 Mazzaferri et al. Aug 2007 A1
20070214220 Alsop et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070220319 Desai et al. Sep 2007 A1
20070245148 Buer Oct 2007 A1
20070256142 Hartung et al. Nov 2007 A1
20070279668 Czyszczewski et al. Dec 2007 A1
20070280112 Zheng et al. Dec 2007 A1
20080034224 Ferren et al. Feb 2008 A1
20080040358 Deng Feb 2008 A1
20080065882 Goodman et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080065903 Goodman et al. Mar 2008 A1
20080079730 Zhang et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080083037 Kruse et al. Apr 2008 A1
20080120689 Morris et al. May 2008 A1
20080170785 Simmons et al. Jul 2008 A1
20080208988 Khouri et al. Aug 2008 A1
20080229428 Camiel Sep 2008 A1
20080262991 Kapoor et al. Oct 2008 A1
20080279381 Narendra et al. Nov 2008 A1
20080309967 Ferlitsch et al. Dec 2008 A1
20090055536 Jo Feb 2009 A1
20090086252 Zucker et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090172786 Backa Jul 2009 A1
20090182931 Gill et al. Jul 2009 A1
20090232300 Zucker et al. Sep 2009 A1
20090327743 Finlayson et al. Dec 2009 A1
20100174784 Levey et al. Jul 2010 A1
20100250547 Grefenstette et al. Sep 2010 A1
20110167265 Ahuja et al. Jul 2011 A1
20110273554 Su et al. Nov 2011 A1
20120011189 Werner et al. Jan 2012 A1
20120183174 Basavapatna et al. Jul 2012 A1
20120191792 Chebiyyam Jul 2012 A1
20130276061 Chebiyyam Oct 2013 A1
20140115086 Chebiyyam Apr 2014 A1
20140283145 Chebiyyam et al. Sep 2014 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (3)
Number Date Country
2411330 Aug 2005 GB
WO 02093410 Nov 2002 WO
WO 2006076536 Jul 2006 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (146)
Entry
U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432, filed Sep. 5, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Aug. 17, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/123,370, filed May 19, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526, filed Apr. 14, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/210,321, filed Aug. 23, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Jun. 23, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Feb. 6, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Apr. 26, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Nov. 29, 2006.
Fumera, G. et al., “Spam Filtering Based on the Analysis of Text Information Embedded into Images,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, Dec. 2006.
Non-Final Rejection in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Dec. 8, 2008.
Response to Non-Final Action dated Dec. 8, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Mar. 9, 2009.
Final Rejection in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Jun. 10, 2009.
Notice of Appeal in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Dec. 10, 2009.
Appeal Brief filed in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Dec. 10, 2009.
Examiner Interview Summary in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Feb. 5, 2010.
Non-Final Rejection in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Mar. 22, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Action dated Mar. 22, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479, filed Jul. 22, 2010.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Nov. 8, 2010.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Aug. 17, 2009.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 17, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Nov. 17, 2009.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Jan. 26, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Apr. 26, 2010.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Jul. 16, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 16, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Dec. 16, 2010.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Mar. 10, 2011.
Response to Non-Final Action dated Mar. 10, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Jun. 10, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745 mailed Nov. 2, 2009.
Response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on Nov. 2, 2009 U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745, filed Feb. 2, 2010.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745 mailed on Apr. 21, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on Apr. 21, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745, filed Jul. 21, 2010.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745 mailed on Oct. 21, 2010.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/546,745, filed Feb. 22, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on May 14, 2009.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 14, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Oct. 14, 2009.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Jan. 11, 2010.
Response to Final Office Action dated Jan. 11, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Mar. 11, 2010.
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Mar. 25, 2010.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment filed in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Mar. 29, 2010.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Jun. 24, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 24, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Nov. 24, 2010.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Feb. 18, 2011.
Response to Final Office Action dated Feb. 18, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Apr. 18, 2011.
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Apr. 27, 2011.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment filed in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed May 18, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Oct. 12, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Action dated Oct. 12, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Feb. 14, 2011.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on May 5, 2011.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Jul. 5, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on May 23, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Apr. 28, 2011.
ClearContext, www.clearcontext.com/user—guide/; [available online at at URL <http://web.archive.org/20061107135010/http://www.clearcontext.com/user—guide/>], Nov. 7, 2006 (pp. 1-24).
Dabbish, et al., “Understanding Email Use: Predicting Action on a Message,” CHI 2005—Papers: Email and Security, Portland Oregon; available online at URL: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/˜kraut/Rkraut.site.files/articles/dabbish05-UnderstandingEmailUse.pdf>] Apr. 2-7, 2005 (pp. 691-700).
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Jul. 20, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Jul. 21, 2011.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 28, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163, filed Jul. 28, 2011.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Dec. 21, 2011.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 filed Jan. 3, 2012.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Jan. 19, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 filed Jan. 19, 2012.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Feb. 16, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Response in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Feb. 21, 2012.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Mar. 1, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Mar. 22, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 entitled “System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Preventing Image-Related Data Loss”, filed on Mar. 24, 2012.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Apr. 3, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Mar. 29, 2012, entitled “System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Determining Whether an Electronic Mail Message is Compliant with an Etiquette Policy”, Inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 19, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Apr. 16, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Apr. 16, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Apr. 27, 2012.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Jun. 4, 2012.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on May 10, 2012.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 10, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Jul. 10, 2012.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on Jul. 23, 2011.
Response to Non-Final Action dated May 23, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420, filed Aug. 22, 2011.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Sep. 14, 2011.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 20, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Oct. 19, 2011.
Response to Non-Final Action dated Jul. 21, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831, filed Oct. 19, 2011.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on Nov. 2, 2011.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Oct. 19, 2011.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Nov. 14, 2011.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on Mar. 16, 2012.
Layland, Robin, “Data Leak Prevention: Coming Soon to a Business Near You,” Business Communications Review, May 2007 (pp. 44-49).
Heikkila, Faith M., “Encryption: Security Considerations for Portable Media Devices,” IEEE Computer Society, IEEE Security & Privacy, Jul.-Aug. 2007 (pp. 22-27).
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 1, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed May 29, 2012.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Aug. 8, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment to in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed Nov. 7, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Aug. 6, 2012.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Aug. 15, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Nov. 15, 2012.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 23, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420, filed Oct. 23, 2012.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/840,831 mailed on May 9, 2012.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/905,420 mailed on Dec. 6, 2012.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Sep. 4, 2012.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 4, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163, filed Dec. 4, 2012.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on Aug. 20, 2012.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Aug. 20, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Nov. 20, 2012.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 4, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930, filed May 06, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Apr. 5, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on May 3, 2013.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Mar. 25, 2013.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Apr. 15, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Feb. 4, 2013.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on Feb. 12, 2013.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/473,930 mailed on Jul. 16, 2013.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 05, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745, filed Jul. 5, 2013.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/564,745 mailed on Jul. 29, 2013.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 3, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844, filed Aug. 5, 2013.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/740,844 mailed on Sep. 5, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Sep. 10, 2013.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 23, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777, filed Aug. 23, 2013.
Masaru Takesue, “A Scheme for Protecting the Information Leakage Via Portable Devices,” IEEE, 2007.
Hangbae Chang et al., “Design of Inside Information Leakage Prevention System in Ubiquitous Computing Environment,” Springer Verlag, 2005.
Mingdi Xu et al., “A New Data Protecting Scheme Based on TPM,” IEEE, 2007.
Peter Hannay et al.,“ Pockdet SDV with SD Guardian: A Secure & Forensically Safe Portable Execution Environment,” Australian Digital Forensics Conference, 2007.
Morejon, Mario, “Review: Remote Desktop Support out of the Box”, CRN Tech, May 21, 2007.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/349,479 mailed on Oct. 7, 2010.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/144,136 entitled “System, Method, and Computer Program Product for Performing an Action Based on an Aspect of an Electronic Mail Message Thread”, inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam, filed on Dec. 30, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/144,136 mailed on Jun. 2, 2014.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Sep. 23, 2013.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Mar. 21, 2014.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Mar. 18, 2014.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on Dec. 17, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on Oct. 7, 2010.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on May 10, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on Jul. 16, 2013.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/850,432 mailed on Jan. 31, 2014.
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Aug. 1, 2011.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Feb. 6, 2012.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Sep. 21, 2012.
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 12/076,163, filed May 28, 2013.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/434,777 mailed on May 23, 2013.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526, filed on Apr. 14, 2008, entitled “Computer Program Product and Method for Permanently Storing Data Based on Whether a Device is Protected with an Encryption Mechanism and Whether Data in a Data Structure Requires Encryption”, Inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on Nov. 24, 2010.
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 24, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526, filed Mar. 9, 2011.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/102,526 mailed on May 25, 2011.
After Final Response to Final Office Action dated May 25, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526, filed Jul. 13, 2011.
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526 mailed on Aug. 1, 2011.
Request for Continued Examination in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526, filed Aug. 25, 2011.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/105,526 mailed on Sep. 21, 2013.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/606,915, filed Jan. 27, 2015, entitled System, Method and Computer Program Product for Performing an Action Based on an Aspect of an Electronic Mail Message Thread, Inventor Gopi Krishna Chebiyyam.
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Jan. 27, 2015.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 14/289,859 mailed on Mar. 13, 2015.
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,363 mailed on Jul. 30, 2014.
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/076,163 mailed on Jul. 18, 2014.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/543,869, filed Nov. 17, 2014 and entitled Securing Data Using Integrated Host-Based Data Loss Agent With Encryption Detection, inventors Elad Zucker et al.