The present invention relates to electronic content, and more particularly to gathering information relating to electronic content.
The Internet is constantly growing in popularity, and more and more people are conducting business over the Internet, advertising their products and services by generating and sending electronic mass mailings. This electronic mail (e-mail) is usually unsolicited and regarded as nuisances by the recipients because they occupy much of the storage space needed for necessary and important data processing.
Therefore, it is highly desirable to have a filter system for screening and managing unwanted e-mails (and other electronic content, for that matter), while desired e-mails pass through the system to reach the recipients. Presently, there are products that are capable of filtering out unwanted e-mails, etc.
For example, one method exists which keeps an index list of all agents (e.g. companies, origination addresses, etc.) that generate mass unsolicited e-mails, and provides a mechanism to block any e-mail sent from each agent on the list. Another filter currently available employs filters which are based on predefined characteristics [e.g. words, uniform resource locators (URLs), patterns, etc.]. An incoming e-mail may thus be designated as an unwanted e-mail if, for example, it contains one or more of such characteristics.
In order to be effective, the aforementioned lists and/or characteristics must be constantly updated in order for the foregoing systems to be effective. Currently, these updates are streamed out to filtering systems at regular, predetermined intervals, and are streamed in their entirety. Unfortunately, this can result in considerable use of network bandwidth and/or other resources.
There is thus a need for overcoming these and/or other problems associated with the prior art.
A system, method and computer program product are provided. In use, a checksum associated with electronic content is calculated. Further, a domain name service (DNS) server is queried utilizing the checksum. In response to the query, information is received from the DNS server which relates to the electronic content.
Coupled to the networks 102 are server computers 104 which are capable of communicating over the networks 102. Also coupled to the networks 102 and the server computers 104 is a plurality of client computers 106. Such server computers 104 and/or client computers 106 may each include a domain name service (DNS) server, desktop computer, lap-top computer, hand-held computer, mobile phone, hand-held computer, 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 or router 108 is optionally coupled therebetween.
The workstation shown in
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.
Our 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.
As shown, a checksum associated with electronic content is calculated. See operation 301. In the context of the present embodiment, such electronic content may refer to an electronic mail message, a web page, a file, and/or any other content (and/or component, artifact, etc. thereof) that may be distributed over a network (e.g. see, for example, the networks 102 of
In an optional embodiment where the electronic content refers to an electronic mail message, such a message may be sent utilizing the simple mail transfer protocol (SMTP), and may be received utilizing the POP3 protocol. Still yet, in other embodiments, the electronic mail message may be generated and received utilizing an electronic mail message manager (e.g. MICROSOFT OUTLOOK, etc.) including composing, reading, and sending capabilities. Of course, other protocols are contemplated including, but not limited to ESMTP, X.400, instant messaging protocols, etc.
Further in the context of the present description, the checksum may refer to any string capable of being received and utilized by a DNS server (as defined below). For example, in one optional embodiment, the checksum may include a value or signature derived from a calculation performed upon one or more components [e.g. image, binary string, uniform resource locator (URL), text string, characters, bits, etc.] of the electronic content such that, when re-calculated, the same value is provided for the one or more components. Further, such value is unique to such set of components.
Next, in operation 302, a domain name service (DNS) server is queried utilizing the checksum. In the context of the present description, the DNS server may refer to any computer that is capable of making information available, in response to a query including the aforementioned checksum. To this end, in response to the query, information is received from the DNS server which relates to the electronic content. Note operation 304. It should be noted that the aforementioned information may include any information relating to the electronic content that may be used for absolutely any purpose desired.
For example, in one optional embodiment, the DNS server may resolve a string concocted utilizing the checksum and formatted as (or similar to) a host name, with an Internet Protocol (IP) address that may itself include and/or be used to gain access to information relating to the electronic content. Further, in the context of one embodiment for identifying unwanted electronic mail messages, the IP address may be utilized to determine whether the electronic mail message is unwanted, and/or determine an action to be taken on the electronic mail message.
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. Specifically, more information will be set forth regarding an optional embodiment whereby the various techniques associated with the method 300 of
It should be strongly noted, however, 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 in and out of a security-related context.
As shown, in operation 401, an electronic message is initially received. Such electronic message may be received at a client computer (e.g. see, for example, the client computers 106 of
After receiving the electronic mail message, at least one property associated with such electronic mail message may be identified. Note operation 402. As mentioned previously, such one or more properties may include any component [e.g. image, binary string, uniform resource locator (URL), text string, characters, bits, etc.] of the electronic mail message. Further, such properties may be parsed in any desired manner. Just by way of example, a list of desired components may be provided, whereby each of such components may be identified by parsing the electronic mail message.
Thereafter, in operation 404, a checksum is generated for each property of the electronic mail message. To this one, a plurality of checksums is provided as a result of the present operation. Table 1 illustrates one example of a checksum that relates to an image associated with an electronic mail message. Of course, the 40 character string checksum is set forth for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as limiting in any manner whatsoever.
Next, it is determined whether the checksum(s) is present in a cache. See decision 405. It should be noted that such cache may include cache memory on a computer at which the electronic mail message was received, a local DNS server, and/or any other cache, for that matter. More information regarding such cache will be set forth hereinafter in greater detail.
If it is determined that the checksum is not already stored in the cache per decision 405, a DNS server is queried for an IP address associated with the checksum. Note operation 406. Such DNS server may include a local DNS server, remote DNS server, and/or any other DNS server that requires more time and/or resources (e.g. bandwidth, processing, etc.) for producing the IP address, with respect to the aforementioned cache. For reasons that will soon become apparent, each of the IP addresses delivered by the DNS server includes and/or provides access to information associated with the electronic mail message property represented by the checksum.
In the context of the example where the checksum takes the form shown in Table 1, the query made to the DNS server may take the form of a pseudo-host in an “antispam” domain (e.g. image-rbl.mcafee.com, etc.) in order to obtain the information regarding the checksum (and associated electronic message property, etc.).
Strictly as an option, a plurality of domains may be provided for servicing different checksums. For example, a first domain may be used to service checksums associated with images in electronic mail messages, a second domain may be used to service checksums associated with text strings in electronic mail messages, and so forth.
Table 2 illustrates one example of a DNS server query. Of course, such query is set forth for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as limiting in any manner whatsoever.
Next, in operation 408, the IP address received via the DNS server in operation 406 is stored in the cache. Such IP address is cached in association with the corresponding checksum. Further, as an option, the checksum and the associated IP address may be cached a predetermined amount of time. Still yet, the predetermined amount of time may be determined utilizing the IP address, in a manner that will soon become apparent.
Reference will now be made back to decision 405. If, on the other hand, it is determined that the checksum is indeed already stored in the cache per decision 405, the associated IP address may simply be retrieved from cache. To this end, the querying of the DNS server in operation 406 is conditionally performed based on whether the IP address is cached, thereby saving time and/or resources by skipping operations 406-408, if possible.
In any case, armed with the appropriate IP address (if one is received at all), information in the form of a record may be looked up using the same. Note operation 410. If, for some reason, no IP address is available, a default action may be taken. For example, it may be assumed that the electronic mail message that has the property that gave rise to the checksum is wanted, or at least not unwanted. On the other hand, if such IP address is found, it may be used to retrieve additional information describing the property, and by inference, the electronic mail message.
In one embodiment, the additional information may be stored on (and/or near) a computer that carried out any one or more of the operations 401-409. Further, such information may be used to determine whether the electronic mail message associated with the property is unwanted, and determine an action to be taken on the electronic mail message. See operation 412. More information regarding such information will be set forth in greater detail during reference to
By these features, a computer may optionally forego downloading unwanted electronic mail message database updates periodically, and may further build a local list containing only information relevant to the computer at issue, using a DNS system.
As shown, a plurality of IP addresses 502 is provided each with associated information 504. As shown, such information 504 may identify whether the electronic content is unwanted and, if so, a type, description, identification, etc. thereof.
While not shown, the information 504 may further identify an action to be taken on the electronic content. Such action may include, but is not limited to quarantining the content, deleting the content, cleaning the content, generating an alert, notifying an administrator regarding the content, etc.
Even still, the information 504 may further identify an amount of time that the checksum/IP address is to be cached. See operation 408 of
As yet another option, each portion of the dotted-quad IP address may provide specific information about the electronic mail property queried. See Table 3, for example.
Thus, each of the portions may be altered to manage a particular aspect of e-mail content. Table 4 illustrates one exemplary specific IP address that indicates that a checksum matches a pornographic image, to be deleted, where the checksum should not be cached longer than 15 days.
To this end, the correlation of various IP addresses/information and associated checksums/electronic content may be carried out by one or more administrators, or in any other desired manner, at a central (or distributed) location. Further, such correlation may be updated and/or changed at any time. For example, an action and/or cache period may be altered with respect to a uniquely identified item of unwanted content, based on various factors, etc.
Further, a particular computer may efficiently build up a cache of checksums that are relevant to types of electronic mail messages (or other content) that are received, without necessarily downloading large volumes of checksums and/or other updates, many or most of which may never be used. This may be particularly valuable for applications running on computers that have restricted bandwidth and/or only process a few electronic mail messages each day.
In one embodiment, terrorism may be countered utilizing the aforementioned technology. According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, cyber-terrorism is any “premeditated, politically motivated attack against information, computer systems, computer programs, and data which results in violence against non-combatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” A cyber-terrorist attack is designed to cause physical violence or extreme financial harm. According to the U.S. Commission of Critical Infrastructure Protection, possible cyber-terrorist targets include the banking industry, military installations, power plants, air traffic control centers, and water systems.
Thus, by optionally incorporating the present technology into the cyber-frameworks of the foregoing potential targets, terrorism may be countered by preventing inundation with unwanted electronic content, which may potentially cause extreme financial harm.
While various embodiments have been described above, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. For example, any of the network elements may employ any of the desired functionality set forth hereinabove. 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.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5121345 | Lentz | Jun 1992 | A |
5283856 | Gross et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5509120 | Merkin et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5619648 | Canale et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5623600 | Ji et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5724567 | Rose et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5765028 | Gladden | Jun 1998 | A |
5805911 | Miller | Sep 1998 | A |
5832208 | Chen | Nov 1998 | A |
5845285 | Klein | Dec 1998 | A |
5870549 | Bobo, II | Feb 1999 | A |
5987610 | Franczek et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999932 | Paul | Dec 1999 | A |
6023723 | McCormick et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6047277 | Parry et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6052709 | Paul | Apr 2000 | A |
6073142 | Geiger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092101 | Birrell et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6101531 | Eggleston et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6144934 | Stockwell et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6161130 | Horvitz et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6167434 | Pang | Dec 2000 | A |
6189002 | Roitblat | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6199102 | Cobb | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6199103 | Sakaguchi et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6219818 | Freivald et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6266692 | Greenstein | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6321267 | Donaldson | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6330590 | Cotten | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6356935 | Gibbs | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370526 | Agrawal et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6393423 | Goedken | May 2002 | B1 |
6393464 | Dieterman | May 2002 | B1 |
6393465 | Leeds | May 2002 | B2 |
6396513 | Helfman | May 2002 | B1 |
6421709 | McCormick et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6453327 | Nielsen | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6460050 | Pace et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6546390 | Pollack et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6609081 | de Varennes et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609205 | Bernhard et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6615241 | Miller et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6615242 | Riemers | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6650890 | Irlam et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6654787 | Aronson et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6665725 | Dietz et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6675162 | Russell-Falla et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6684394 | Shann | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6687740 | Gough et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6691156 | Drummond et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6718367 | Ayyadurai | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6732157 | Gordon et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6748422 | Morin et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757830 | Tarbotton et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6769016 | Rothwell et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6772196 | Kirsch et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6772292 | Garber et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6779021 | Bates et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6802012 | Smithson et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807566 | Bates et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6868498 | Katsikas | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6915334 | Hall | Jul 2005 | B1 |
7007080 | Wilson | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7016939 | Rothwell et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7047297 | Huntington et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7072942 | Maller | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7080366 | Kramskoy et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7103645 | Leighton et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7149189 | Huntington et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7162698 | Huntington et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7191327 | Viljoen et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7209954 | Rothwell et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7213061 | Hite et al | May 2007 | B1 |
7213062 | Raciborski | May 2007 | B1 |
7213260 | Judge | May 2007 | B2 |
7225244 | Reynolds et al. | May 2007 | B2 |
7299261 | Oliver et al. | Nov 2007 | B1 |
7386889 | Shay | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7506155 | Stewart et al. | Mar 2009 | B1 |
7516489 | Lahti | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7565423 | Fredricksen | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7574499 | Swildens et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7580982 | Owen et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7590684 | Herrmann | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7594113 | Tan et al. | Sep 2009 | B2 |
7636306 | Dougall et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7647376 | Jagger et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7647411 | Schiavone et al. | Jan 2010 | B1 |
7664819 | Murphy et al. | Feb 2010 | B2 |
7689822 | Maggenti et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7716367 | Leighton et al. | May 2010 | B1 |
7725602 | Liu et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7756930 | Brahms et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7774843 | Prakash | Aug 2010 | B1 |
7797443 | Pettigrew et al. | Sep 2010 | B1 |
7849143 | Vuong | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7873695 | Clegg et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7882189 | Wilson et al. | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7891001 | Greenawalt et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7895651 | Brennan | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7917588 | Clegg et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7917961 | McIsaac et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7926104 | Sundaram et al. | Apr 2011 | B1 |
7970832 | Perry et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
7984493 | Jones | Jul 2011 | B2 |
8011003 | Rowney et al. | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8032594 | Helsper et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8037144 | Lund et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8037527 | Milener et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8219620 | Hart | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8380791 | Gordon et al. | Feb 2013 | B1 |
20020001307 | Nguyen et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016824 | Leeds | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020112227 | Kramskoy et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020116463 | Hart | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020120705 | Schiavone et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20030087646 | Funato et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030088627 | Rothwell et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20040177120 | Kirsch | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050015626 | Chasin | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050078088 | Davis et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050097177 | McUmber et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050177752 | Hollander et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060085543 | Hrastar et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060101273 | Tan et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060149823 | Owen et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20070067682 | Fang | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070079379 | Sprosts et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070083929 | Sprosts et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070220607 | Sprosts et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080140847 | Almog | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20090262741 | Jungck et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20120185549 | Hart | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185550 | Hart | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185551 | Hart | Jul 2012 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0813162 | Dec 1997 | EP |
2396993 | Jul 2004 | GB |
WO 9837680 | Aug 1998 | WO |
WO 9933188 | Jul 1999 | WO |
WO 9967731 | Dec 1999 | WO |
WO 03010680 | Feb 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
W. Gansterer et al. Anti-Spam Methods—State-of-the-Art, Mar. 2005, University of Vienna, Austria, pp. 1, 4-7, 19-21, 29-32, 40-43. |
Rekhter, Y. et al. “Address Allocation for Private Internets,” RFC 1918, Feb. 1996. |
Ferguson, P. and Senie, D. “Network Ingress Filtering: Defeating Denial of Service Attacks Which Employ IP Source Address Spoofing,” RFC 2827, May 2000. |
Callon, R. and Braun, H. W. “Guidelines for the Use of Internet-IP Addresses in the ISO Connectionless-Mode Network Protocol,” RFC 1069, Feb. 1989. |
Warnicke, E. “Suggested Scheme for DNS Resolution of Networks and Gateways,” RFC 4183, Sep. 2005. |
Lynn, C. et al. “X.509 Extensions for IP Addresses and AS Identifiers,” RFC 3779, Jun. 2004. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240, filed Feb. 20, 2001. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/281,966, filed Nov. 16, 2005. |
U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599, filed Jul. 26, 2001. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,620, filed Dec. 13, 2002. |
U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708, filed Feb. 5, 2002. |
DNSBL, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNSBL. |
International Search Report in PCT International Application No. PCT/US02/023811 mailed on Oct. 29, 2002. |
International Preliminary Examination Report in PCT International Application No. PCT/US02/23811 completed on Jul. 9, 2003. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jun. 14, 2004. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 14, 2004 in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Sep. 3, 2004. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jan. 18, 2005. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 18, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Apr. 18, 2005. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jun. 30, 2005. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 30, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Oct. 12, 2005. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jan. 3, 2006. |
Response to Final Office Action dated Jan. 3, 2006 in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Feb. 21, 2006. |
Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Mar. 23, 2006. |
Pre-Brief Conference Request and Notice of Appeal in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on May 5, 2006. |
Pre-Brief Conference Decision in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jul. 5, 2006. |
Appeal Brief in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Feb. 26, 2007. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Nov. 16, 2007. |
Reply Brief in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Jan. 16, 2008. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/281,966 mailed on Sep. 18, 2009. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Sep. 18, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/281,966 filed on Dec. 18, 2009. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/281,966 mailed on Apr. 1, 2010. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 11/095,146 mailed on Jul. 18, 2006. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 18, 2006 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/095,146 filed on Nov. 20, 2006. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/095,146 mailed on Dec. 15, 2006. |
USPTO File History for U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,930 filed on Jul. 26, 2001. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Apr. 6, 2005. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Apr. 6, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on May 4, 2005. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Jul. 25, 2008. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jul. 25, 2008 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on Aug. 30, 2005. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Nov. 18, 2005. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 18, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on Feb. 13, 2006. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on May 3, 2006. |
Pre-Brief Conference Request and Notice of Appeal in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on Aug. 3, 2006. |
Supplemental Appeal Brief in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on Mar. 8, 2007. |
Examiner's Answer to Appeal Brief in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Jul. 2, 2007. |
Reply Brief in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on Sep. 4, 2007. |
BAPI Decision in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Feb. 26, 2009. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Apr. 27, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on May 28, 2009. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated May 28, 2009 in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 filed on Aug. 28, 2009. |
Notice of Allowance, Examiner Interview Summary, Notice of Allowability in U.S. Appl. No. 10/072,708 mailed on Nov. 2, 2009. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599 mailed on Oct. 7, 2004. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Oct. 7, 2001 in U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599 filed on Oct. 21, 2004. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599 mailed on Feb. 23, 2005. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 23, 2005 in U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599 filed on Mar. 30, 2005. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599 mailed on Jun. 10, 2005. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 09/916,599 mailed on Sep. 23, 2005. |
Tim Bass, Lt. Col. Glenn Watt, “A Simple Framework for Filtering Queued SMTP Mail”, 1997, IEEE, pp. 1140-1144. |
BPAI Decision on Appeal in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Oct. 6, 2011. |
Response to Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,345 filed on Apr. 29, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,345 mailed on Jun. 20, 2013. |
Response to Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,354 filed on Apr. 29, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,354 mailed on Jun. 21, 2013. |
Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jun. 7, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,338 mailed on Jun. 28, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 28, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,338 filed on Sep. 28, 2012. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,338 mailed on Jan. 18, 2013. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,345 mailed on Jun. 28, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 28, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,345 filed on Sep. 28, 2012. |
Non-Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,354 mailed on Jun. 21, 2012. |
Response to Non-Final Office Action dated Jun. 21, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,354 filed on Sep. 21, 2012. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,345 mailed on Jan. 29, 2013. |
Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,354 mailed on Jan. 29, 2013. |
John Viega et al., “Mailman: The GNU Mailing List Manager,” 1998 LISA XII—Dec. 6-11, 1998 (pp. 309-316). |
PCT Written Opinion in International Application Serial No. PCT/US02/23811 mailed on May 1, 2003. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Nov. 30, 2011. |
Notice of Allowance and Examiner Interview Summary in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 mailed on Jan. 6, 2012. |
Request for Continued Examination and Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 09/785,240 filed on Mar. 7, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,338 entitled “Unwanted E-Mail Filtering System Including Voting Feedback”, filed on Mar. 24, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/429,354 entitled “Unwanted E-Mail Filtering System Including Voting Feedback”, filed on Mar. 24, 2012. |
Office Actions and Responses in U.S. Appl. No. 10/318,620. |