Patent Grant
10783719
The present inventions relate generally to electronic postage metering systems, and more particularly, personal computer (PC)-based postage systems.
In 1992, the United States Postal Service (USPS), acting largely on a formal December 1991 proposal by the inventor, began investigating the feasibility of PC-based postage technology. The USPS hosted an exploratory meeting, inviting the inventor and the four existing conventional postage meter vendors (Pitney Bowes, Neopost (called Friden at the time), Ascom Hasler, and Franco Postalia)—firms that represented 100% of the US meter market at that time. Subsequent years saw a number of follow-on meetings, and the USPS eventually published a specification in the 1996 Federal Register outlining what the USPS called an “Information Based Postage Indicium Program (IBIP).” The requirements for the IBIP are currently set forth in a document called “Information Based Indicium Program (IBIP)—Performance Criteria For Information-Based Indicia and Security Architecture for Open IBI Postage Evidencing Systems (PCIBI-O),” which was published on Jun. 25, 1999 by the USPS, and which is fully and expressly incorporated herein by reference.
Two different types of PC-based postage architectures have evolved. The first type of architecture is a distributed postage indicia generation system, an example of which is detailed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,319,562, entitled “System and Method for Purchase and Application of Postage Using Personal Computer,” which is expressly and fully incorporated herein by reference. In this system, lump sums of postage are purchased and downloaded via a telecommunications link to a local secure computational device at the end user's location. In USPS jargon, this device is called the Postal Secure Device (PSD). Typically, these postage transfers range from fifty to several thousand dollars. This amount is added to whatever balance remains in the PSD. The end user may then draw upon the balance in the PSD to produce postage indicia of varying amounts and service classes that are printed on mail pieces. As the mail pieces are individually metered (or in the case of the IBIP, created and simultaneously “metered”), the balance in the PSD is decremented by the transaction amount (e.g., 34 cents). The second type of architecture is a centralized postage indicia generation system, an example of which is detailed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,005,945, entitled “System and Method for Dispensing Postage Based on Telephonic or Web Milli-Transactions,” and which is fully and expressly incorporated herein by reference. In this system, the end user's account balance is securely stored in a centralized postage-issuing computer system, and the end user contacts the centralized postage-issuing computer system each and every time postage is to be applied to a mail piece.
Referring to
The amount of data in the postage indicium 104 is substantial and was designed with a distributed postage indicia generation system in mind. Significantly, in a distributed postage indicium generation architecture, the USPS has no detailed knowledge of how the postage is consumed. For example, for a hypothetical $100 of postage downloaded, the end user could create ten postage indicia of a $10 valuation, two hundred indicia of 50-cent valuation, or a combination thereof. In reality, the number of permutations is far greater. The USPS approach to this problem was to create a postage indicium with sufficient information, so that its authenticity could be determined in the absence of any other information. In other words, the USPS sought a “stand-alone” system that would be verifiable using only the human-readable information on the mail piece 100 and the data encoded in the two-dimensional barcode 106 of the postage indicium 104. In theory, no other “outside” information would be necessary. Table 1 sets forth the current IBIP postage indicium contents, including the field name and byte size of each content item.
Thus, the date (item #7) embedded in the barcode portion of the postage indicium 104 could be compared to the current date, as well as to the human-readable date. The postage amount (item #6) embedded in the barcode portion 106 of the postage indicium 104 could be compared to the human-readable postage amount, and for United States addresses, the delivery point ZIP code (item #9) embedded in the barcode portion 106 of the postage indicium 104 could be compared with the delivery address 114 printed on the mail piece 100. Should any of these “information pairs” show an inconsistency, the mail piece 100 would be immediately suspect and would be a candidate for further investigation.
The “veracity” of the invention in the barcode portion 106 of the postage indicium 104 was to be validated by public key cryptography, which was first disclosed by Diffie and Hellman in 1976, and essentially involves the use of a matched pair of public and private key components to either encrypt or digitally sign data. The keys are extraordinarily large integer values that have interesting cryptographic capabilities. Briefly, the public key component can be used to encrypt material, or verify a digital signature created by the corresponding private key. The private key component can be used only to create digital signatures that can be verified by the public key. Importantly, the public key component can be widely disseminated and in fact “published,” because it is virtually impossible to infer the corresponding private key component. In cryptographic terms, it is “computationally infeasible” to infer the private key component given the public key component provided the modulus or size of the key is of sufficient size. Given the computational speed of computers available at the time of this writing, key sizes of 1024 or 2048 bits are considered highly secure.
In the USPS implementation, public key encryption is not used, but rather the private key component is used to digitally sign data. For example, as illustrated in Table 1, a private key component is used to digitally sign the first twelve items contained in the postage indicium 104 to generate a digital signature (item #13), which digital signature is then appended thereto. In the USPS model, each end user (i.e., meter account) has a unique public/private key pair assigned to him or her. The private key component is never divulged to the end user, but is stored securely in the PSD at the end user's site. The PSD digitally signs the data, i.e., the information associated with the postage indicium request. The matching public key component can then be used to validate the signature. A more detailed discussion of how public key cryptography is used in the IBIP is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,005,945.
Despite the commercial potential of the IBIP, it languished in uncertainty for several more years until two vendors were approved for beta testing in August of 1998. The companies, EStamp and Stamps.com, were relative newcomers to the PC-postage effort. Both firms finished beta testing approximately one year later (the fall of 1999). Pitney Bowes, the dominant conventional manufacturer, and Neopost were approved several months later. A host of high-value IPO's, based on vastly overstated market potential, funded the EStamp and Stamps.com efforts during the late 1990's. Significantly, as the year 2001 draws to a close, EStamp has withdrawn from the postage business, Stamps.com is encountering several financial and legal problems, and the IBIP is in disarray. During their existence, the foregoing two firms consumed nearly one billion dollars in venture capital and public investment funds attempting to make PC-postage a viable business. In sum, two extraordinarily well-funded vendors have been driven out of the business, the established manufacturers of postage meters have curtailed or delayed their entry into the PC-Postage arena, and end users who were hopeful that this technology would save them time, money, and frustration were deeply disappointed. There are a host of factors that have contributed to the failure of the IBIP to date.
First, the USPS has insisted on developing a “perfect” security model before embarking on limited, alpha-level field-testing to identify “real world” problems. Second, the USPS has emphasized envelope printing, which, due to unyielding USPS mail processing requirements, proved to be very difficult to produce on desktop printers. This was especially true for courtesy reply envelopes provided by utilities and credit card firms, for example, because not only was the envelope difficult to feed and position, but there was a conflict in certain mail processing markings, especially the Facing Identification Code (FIM). Third, the focus on the consumer market with the promise of large numbers ended up costing the initial vendors large sums of money to acquire these customers, which did not provide sufficient financial returns. Fourth, the USPS was slow to appreciate and embrace a host of fraud prevention and detection enhancements inherent to centralized postage dispensing systems. Fifth, there is a lack of single piece discounts for IBIP postage users, even though the addressing and automation requirements imposed by the IBIP are comparable with other discount mailings (such as First Class Presort mail), and even though the discount was repeatedly recommended by the Postal Rates Commission.
Sixth, the public key infrastructure (PKI) approach adopted by the USPS has fallen short on many fronts. The first PKI-related problem surfaced immediately after the USPS published the initial IBIP specification in 1996. In order to provide a “stand-alone” verification system, barcode portion 106 of the postage indicium 104 would not only contain the items shown in Table 1, but would also have to carry the associated public key information for that account. The data in Table 1 is represented by 96 bytes. Because the public key component for a 1024 bit DSA key pair is 128 bytes long, however, adding the public key component for stand-alone verification caused the postage indicium 104 to be over twice the size of the current IBIP version. Comparable public key lengths are seen in the other USPS-approved key pairs such as RSA and elliptic curve.
But the postage indicium 104 needed to be still larger to achieve the goal of stand-alone verification, because the public key component itself must be verifiable. To understand why, suppose an adversary generated her own public/private key pair. This is a very easy process for an entry-level cryptographic programmer. Then she could create a mail piece, generate indicium data with fraudulent account information, digitally sign that information with a private key, and then append the public key to the end of the indicium data. To a verifying party in a stand-alone environment, everything would seem to be in order if one trusted the public key component.
This problem can be solved by using a Certificate Authority (CA), which is a very trusted party (e.g., a government agency or a private firm such as Verisign) who will accept a public key component generated by a third party, investigate that party to ascertain that they are who they say they are, and upon approval, digitally sign the public key with a master private key maintained by that CA. Thus, if the verifying party has the public key component of the CA available in the stand-alone verification system, it can be used to verify the digital signature on the account-specific public key component. If that verification is successful, the account-specific public key can be used to authenticate the postage indicium 104.
The advantage of this approach is that a single master CA public key can be used to ascertain the veracity of millions of other public keys. The disadvantage is that not only is a 128-byte account-specific public key required in the postage indicium 104, but the digital signature generated by the CA adds another 40 to 128 bytes of information. In addition, the CA typically embeds other information in the signed package, including the name of the party and the range of dates for which the account-specific public key is valid. The complete package is called a digital certificate and can grow to a size of several thousand bytes depending upon how many intermediate CA's are involved. The indicium data stream initially proposed by the USPS approached 500 bytes, and the associated two-dimensional bar code portion 106 of the postage indicium 104 covered approximately 25% of the area of a typical commercial #10 envelope. The mailing community and potential IBIP vendors resoundingly rejected this as completely unworkable.
The inventor (and presumably other potential IBIP vendors) proposed an alternative approach to the USPS, which brought the postage indicium down to the current 100 bytes. Rather than including a large digital certificate, a unique 4-byte numerical key pair ID (item #3 in Table 1) would be included instead. The key pair ID then references a complete CA-signed, account-specific public key that the USPS can distribute to field verification staff via CD-ROM or other means. Essentially, each verification staff member would have a database of CA-signed public keys indexed by a key pair ID. When scanning postage indicium 104, the key pair ID would be used to look up the appropriate public key, and that key would be used to verify the digital signature in the postage indicium 104.
While solving the space problem on the mail piece, the inclusion of a key pair ID within the postage indicium 104 did present the USPS with a new problem of distributing public keys to its field staff. This proved to be a daunting task, as some vendors were signing up thousands of new end users per month, each of whom represented a public key that needed to be distributed to every field verifier if the goal of stand-alone verification was to be achieved. Thus, the second major PKI-related problem encountered by the USPS and the IBIP vendors was the cost and logistical issues associated with managing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of key pairs. IBIP vendors were charged for each key pair certified by the USPS CA. The cost, $8.00 US, was substantial for a PC postage service that had a price point as low as $1.99/month. Furthermore, the USPS had to maintain the database of public keys, deal with the revocation and reissuing of public keys as they expired, and handle other issues associated with the PKI.
In 1998, the inventor suggested another approach to key management in centralized postage systems, which is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,005,945. Stated briefly, this approach uses a single key pair to service the entire user community for a given centralized postage vendor. The key pair might change daily, weekly or monthly for security reasons, but the net effect would be that only dozens of keys would be employed as compared to millions. We hasten to reiterate that this approach is feasible only when the postage indicia are created at the centralized server cluster run by the postage vendor. That is, the safety of the private key can be assured since it is in the possession of the trusted postage vendor, and not the end user. It should be noted that even the centralized system postage vendor does not have direct knowledge of the private key material. USPS design guidelines require that private key material can only be presented “in the clear” within the confines of a FIPS-140 coprocessor device at the centralized server cluster. This is to prevent “insider attacks” from compromising the private signing key material.
Distributed-architecture IBIP systems that use a local “vault” attached to a PC at an end user's site, or newer stand-alone meters that create signed IBIP-like indicia, must continue to have a unique, dedicated key pair in each remote PSD. If a single key pair was used, and an end user compromised just one of those devices, that key could be distributed widely and used to create millions of fraudulent postage indicia.
In 1Q2001, the USPS permitted the inventor to institute the key management plan under a three-month beta test, and later officially notified all IBI centralized postage vendors that they too could employ this approach. The net result is there will be far fewer public keys to maintain for the USPS verification operations, and it is considerably more practical to perform stand-alone verification. Despite these improvements, the inventor believes that the stand-alone verification system can be eliminated without degrading postage security.
Another problem with the self-verifying IBI indicium concept is that it does a poor job of protecting against the fraudulent use of copies of valid postage indicia. Duplicate mail pieces have the potential to create substantial dollar losses to the USPS, particularly when high postage value packages are involved. Let us consider the following fraud scenario. A shipper has 70 pounds of goods to ship to a client, and he wishes to use Priority Mail. Roughly speaking, the USPS charges about $110 to transport 70 pounds cross-country via Priority Mail. If the goods can be subdivided into smaller packages, the shipper could easily perform the following attack. The shipper would create a postage-bearing shipping label for 35 pounds (approximately $52 in postage). The shipper would then create a second copy of this label, either by using a photocopy process, by interrupting the printer in mid-stream, causing it to think it must reprint a second version from the data in the printer memory, or by using a commonly available software package, such as Adobe Exchange, to create a PDF image of the label (rather than a print image), and then to print the resulting PDF image file more than once. Note that PC-based postage indicia do not use any special inks (such as the fluorescent-traced red ink used in conventional postage meters), so they are particularly easy to replicate. The shipper would then divide the shipment into two 35-pound cartons and apply a postage label to each carton (one an original, and the other a copy).
This would effectively defraud the USPS of over $50. If a USPS inspector happened to intercept either package and perform a scan of the barcode portion of the postage indicium, the information would be consistent on each label. The amount of postage in human-readable and barcode format would match. The date would be reasonable. The destination ZIP+4+2 would match that on the physical destination address. The only way the verifier could detect the fraud is by intercepting both packages simultaneously and scanning them side-by-side. The inspector would hopefully notice that the ascending/descending balances (c.f., items 5 and 11 in Table 1) were the same in each indicium—a clear indication of fraud.
The USPS has seemingly discounted the impact of “copy fraud.” The USPS recognizes that, as with conventional postage, it can only perform spot statistical testing on the mail stream. But the USPS has also been somewhat “envelope-centric” in their thinking. That is, the USPS feels that an attacker would find little value in sending two envelopes to the same destination, and that the dollar amount of fraud would be on the order of 34 cents. The inventor believes that the future of PC-based postage is not with envelopes, but with high value, expedited packages. Letter mail (e.g., correspondence, statements, and invoices) is being rapidly replaced with electronic communications, and in the not-too-distant future, packages will dominate the USPS environment. This trend is likely to be accelerated given the anthrax attacks of 3Q2001. Therefore, it is believed that the USPS is underestimating the dollar value of this fraud threat. The inventor believes that by modifying the postage indicium as discussed herein, copy fraud can be further reduced if not effectively eliminated.
This is an appropriate time to discuss the “uniqueness” of the information in indicia. As we have seen in the previous example, using the digitally signed ZIP+4+2 and cross checking this value with the ZIP+4+2 shown in the human readable address, is not a fool proof method to detect copy fraud. The ZIP+4+2 of a given delivery address is something that can appear in an indicium for a given account holder on many occasions. Insofar as the indicium is concerned it is not a particularly unique value. What is unique in the originally proposed and used USPS indicium as the combination of the account number, the ascending register, and the descending register (balance) for that account. For instance, the concatenation of these three values should always result in a unique numerical string in an indicium. Put another way, if one finds two indicia with the identical concatenated value, this is clear evidence that at least one indicium is fraudulent.
The descending register in a given postage account is simply the amount of postage available to create indicia. It is effectively the “remaining balance.” The ascending register is the lifetime sum of all postage indicia created within that account. When an indicium is created, the descending register is decremented by the indicium value and the ascending register is incremented. Eventually, the meter account will run out of funds (the descending register approaches zero) and the account hold can purchase more postage from the postal authority. A postal purchase results in a matching increase in the descending register. The ascending register is not impacted by a postage purchase.
One can see that for a given account, a given descending register (say $5.00) may occur many times over the lifetime of the account. However, a situation where the ascending register is $505 and the descending register is $104 will only occur once (if at all) in a given account lifetime. This is because the ascending register is ever increasing as the life of the meter goes on.
The USPS has based some portion of its fraud detection protocol on the “uniqueness” provided by the ascending/descending register combination for a given account. But as an index for uniqueness, this is a poor choice from an operation standpoint. The combination of the two register values does not result in a continuous number series. The registers are tracked to the 1/10th of a cent (a mil), and a typical minimum change in the register values is 340 mils (a 34 cent First Class postage indicium). The next indicium might be a high-postage-value package and result in a register change of 20000 mils ($20.00). Again, the combination of ascending/descending registers will be unique for a given account, but this “index of uniqueness” is far from optimal. The index will have large gaps in the number sequence, and the gap sizes will be variable.
A seventh problem that has contributed to the failure of the IBIP is the assumption that all printing-related problems could be controlled by “perfect” vendor software and therefore, a staunch refusal to offer a refund procedure for failed or partially-printed mail pieces. It should be stressed that PC-postage is different from printing other types of shipping labels (e.g., UPS or FedEx) in that misprints are, in effect, losses of “money.” If a shipper misprints a UPS shipping label from a shipping software package or web site, another one can be reprinted and placed on the package with no negative financial impact to the shipper. This is because the UPS business model charges the shipper when the package enters the UPS shipping stream and is scanned. The UPS label has no inherent “value” until it enters the UPS delivery system. The USPS, however, as do many postal agencies worldwide, assumes that the postage is paid before the package enters the shipping stream.
The current USPS refund procedures for misprinted mail pieces are overly strict and reflect a mindset formed over decades of supporting conventional meter technologies. Refunds are possible, but only if one presents a physical specimen. For instance, if a mailer creates a meter strip using a conventional postage meter (or prints the postage indicium directly on a mail piece), and decides not to use that postage indicium, the postage indicium can be taken to a local post office for a refund of anywhere from 90% to 100% of the postage value.
For PC-postage vendors, the procedures are somewhat different, although the criteria are the same. If the PC-postage user creates a readable mail piece (specifically, the postage indicium must be scannable), it may be submitted to the PC-postage vendor for a refund. The vendor, in turn, applies to the USPS for a refund. The overall process is complex, time-consuming, and B very costly to operate. It also requires that USPS auditors make field visits to the PC-postage vendors to examine all of the physical specimens before the refund can be authorized.
If the end-user is unlucky enough to have attempted to print a mail piece that resulted in a deduction to the account balance, but has no physical evidence of this mail piece, the current USPS rules prohibit a refund. Unfortunately, this situation is not uncommon. The mail piece stock (e.g., label or envelope) can misfeed, causing only a portion of the indicium to print on the paper. Or if the PC is low on Graphic Display Interface (GDI) or memory resources, or has crashed for any reason, the printer driver may fail to render the two-dimensional barcode image. Or if the job is sent to a network printer, it is possible that another user/operator can flush the PC-postage print job by manipulating the printer queue or control panel, thus resulting in the unavailability of the specimen.
As discouraging as all the IBIP-related problems may seem, the inventor feels that PC-postage can be made viable by incorporating novel, yet easily implementable, design elements into the IBIP base design.
The present inventions use an indexing identifier (such as, e.g., a tracking identifier or the combination of a postage vendor ID, user account, and piece count) to decrease the size of the postage indicium transmitted to an end user computer, or eliminate transmission of the postage indicium altogether. When the postage indicium for the end user computer is generated, it is stored, and the indexing identifier, rather than the postage indicium, is transmitted to the end user computer. The indexing identifier is applied to a mail piece, which is then scanned by the postal authority. The postal authority can obtain the stored postage indicium by reference to the indexing identifier. In this manner, the postal authority has access to the postage indicium without having to apply it to the mail piece.
In accordance with a first aspect of the present inventions, a method of indexing a postage indicium within a centralized postage-issuing computer system having a plurality of user accounts is provided. The method comprises generating a postage indicium associated with a mail piece, associating an indexing identifier with the postage indicium, and storing the indexed postage indicium within a database. The indexing identifier can be embodied in a variety of forms, but in the preferred method is unique within a postal service (such as, e.g., the USPS) and comprises a postage vendor ID, user account number, and piece count, or alternatively, a unique tracking identifier. The postage indicium may comprise a variety of items, such as, e.g., postage amount, date and time of postage information creation, service class, optional data advance, and delivery zip code.
To protect the integrity of the postage indicium stored in the centralized postage-issuing computer system, the method preferably comprises deriving a digital signature from the postage indicium, associating the digital signature with the postage indicium to generate an indexed self-validating postage indicium, and storing the indexed self-validating postage indicium within the centralized postage-issuing computer system. The digital signature may be generated by applying a private key to the postage indicium, and the digital signature can be associated with M) the postage indicium by attaching it thereto. The digital signing of the postage indicium can be further protected using a physically secure coprocessor device to perform this operation.
In the preferred method, an indexing identifier request is received from an end user computer, and the indexing identifier is transmitted to the end user computer. The indexing identifier can then be applied to a mail piece. When the mail piece is being inspected by the postal authority, the method may further comprise receiving a postage indicium request containing the indexing identifier from the postal authority, retrieving the indexed postage indicium from the database based on the received indexing identifier, and transmitting the indexed postage indicium to the postal authority.
In accordance with a second aspect of the present inventions, a method of validating postage for a postal service is provided. The method comprises generating a postage indicium associated with a mail piece, associating an indexing identifier with the postage indicium, and storing the indexed postage indicium within a database. The method further comprises applying the indexing identifier to the mail piece, reading the indexing identifier on the mail piece, and retrieving the indexed postage indicium from the database based on the indexing identifier. The indexing identifier can be applied to the mail piece in a variety of formats, but in the preferred method is applied in a barcode format (such as, e.g., a two-dimensional barcode or even a one-dimensional barcode), and read using a barcode reader, or applied in a human-readable format, and read using an optical character reader.
In accordance with a second aspect of the present inventions, a centralized postage-issuing computer system for indexing postage indicia for a plurality of user accounts within a postal system is provided. The centralized postage-issuing computer system comprises data processing circuitry, a database, a postage indicium generation module, when executed by the data processing circuitry, configured for generating a postage indicium, an indexing module, when executed by the data processing circuitry, configured for associating an indexing identifier with the postage indicium, and a database management module, when executed by the data processing circuitry, configured for storing the indexed postage indicium within the database, and for retrieving the indexed postage indicium from the database based on the indexing identifier.
The postage indicium may be self-validating. In generating the self-validating postage indicium, the postage indicium generation module may comprise a postage indicium generation submodule for generating the postage indicium, a digital signature generation submodule for generating the digital signature; and an association submodule for associating the digital signature with the postage indicium to generate the self-validating indexed postage indicium. To provide additional security, key cryptographic operations may be accomplished by means of a physically secure coprocessor device. In the preferred embodiment, the centralized postage-issuing computer system comprises a communications module, when executed by the data processing circuitry, configured for receiving an indexing identifier request from an end user computer, and for transmitting the indexing identifier to the end user computer. The communications module may also be for receiving a postage indicium request containing the indexing identifier from a postal authority, and for transmitting the retrieved indexed postage indicium to the postal authority.
In accordance with a third aspect of the present inventions, a method of validating postage in a postal system is provided. The method comprises receiving a postage indicium request from a postal authority (such as, e.g., the USPS), wherein the postage indicium carries an indexing identifier and is associated with a mail piece inspected by the postage authority. The A method further comprises retrieving an indexed postage indicium from a database based on the received indexing identifier, and transmitting the postage indicium to the postal authority. The indexed postage indicium may be self-validating postage indicium that is created within a physically secure coprocessor device. As such, these signed indicia may be safely stored in a conventional database for later access and signature verification.
In accordance with a fourth aspect of the present inventions, the indexing identifier can be used to request and receive sender identification information to verify that the sender of a received mail piece is a trusted individual or entity.
Other and further aspects and features of the invention will become apparent from the following drawings and detailed description.
In order to better appreciate how the above-recited and other advantages and objects of the present inventions are obtained, a more particular description of the present inventions briefly described above will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof, which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the invention and are not therefore to be considered limiting of its scope, the invention will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
The present invention is directed to a postage indicia tracking system for generating self-validating unique postage indicia that can be validated by a postal authority (such as, e.g., the United Stated Postal Service (USPS), United Parcel Service (UPS), Federal Express (FedEx), etc.) for various purposes (such as, e.g., detecting copy fraud, postage counterfeiting, refund facilitation, etc.).
Referring to
Like the prior art envelope 102 shown in
The standard tracking identifiers 218 currently used on these USPS labels, however, are not suitable for preventing postage fraud, since one can easily duplicate the postage indicia, while using different tracking identifiers 218 (perhaps on a separate label), effectively covering up the copy fraud. To facilitate in detecting fraud, the self-validating unique postage indicium 204 has been modified to include a unique identifier. As will be described in further detail below, the unique identifier can be composed of, e.g., the same tracking identifier 218 that is provided at the bottom right corner of the label 200. In this case, the unique identifier contained within the self-validating unique postage indicium 204 can be used to validate the standard tracking identifier 218, and can thus be relied upon to detect copy fraud in a stand-alone verification system. If a standard tracking identifier 218 is not used on the label 200 (e.g., if the mail piece is being shipped via first class mail), the unique identifier can be composed of the piece count or ascending register in combination with the postage vendor ID and user account number. In this case, detection of copy fraud can be ensured in a stand-alone verification system only if 100% of the postage indicia are scanned. It is noted that a tracking identifier provides uniqueness with a single string of numbers, whereas a postage vendor ID/user account/piece count (or ascending register) combination provides uniqueness with two strings of numbers. To this extent, the tracking identifier, when available, is more advantageous to use, not only because it can detect copy fraud with respect to a single mail piece even if less than 100% of the postage indicia is scanned, but also because it can simply accomplish this with a single unique string of characters. As will be described in further detail below, however, use of the postage vendor ID/user account/piece count (or ascending register) combination as the unique identifier can be advantageously used to detect postal fraud in a non-stand-alone verification system even if 100% of the mail pieces are not scanned.
Referring to
To this end, the postage system 300 generally comprises a centralized postage indicia generation system 302, which includes a multitude of centralized postage-issuing computer systems 305/306/307 (referred to as “central computer systems” in the figures), each of which communicates with a multitude of end user computers 308. The postage system 300 also generally comprises a postal service 304, which includes a master tracking computer system 310 and a postage validation computer system 312. As will be described in further detail below, the different configurations of centralized postage-issuing computer systems 305/306/307 represent different means for issuing the tracking identifiers to the end user computers 308. As illustrated, the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 305/306/307, end user computers 308, master tracking computer system 310, and postage validation computer system 312 variously communicate with each other over communications links 314-322, each of which may represent, e.g., a LAN, Internet, or telephone network). It should be noted that, in the illustrated embodiment, communications among the end user computers 308, centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307, master tracking computer system 310, and postage validation computer system 312 over the various links are generally secured by use of session encryption/decryption technology. The software and processes used to implement this technology is described in detail in U.S. Pat. No. 6,005,945, which has previously been incorporated herein by reference.
In the illustrated embodiment, each end user computer 308 is owned and operated by a client of a postal vendor, and is the principal device for preparing mail pieces by printing the tracking identifiers and self-validating unique postage indicia on the mail pieces when received by the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307. Each centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307 is owned and operated by a postal vendor and is the principal device that dispenses unique postage indicia to the end user computers 308 over communications links 314 in response to requests by the end user computers 308. As will be described in further detail below, the self-validating unique postage indicia contain identifiers that are unique within the postal service 304. Thus, at least for a significant period of time, e.g., one year, no two unique identifiers will be identical, thereby providing a reliable means for detecting mail fraud. The unique identifiers can be composed of numbers, letters, or a combination. As previously discussed, however, these unique identifiers are preferably tracking identifiers.
The centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306 and 307 are also the principal devices that directly transmit tracking identifiers to the end user computers 308 over communications links 314 in response to requests by the end user computers 308. This configuration is used when the end user computers 308 do not directly obtain the tracking identifiers from the master tracking computer system 310. The centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306 and 307 differ from each other in that the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306 merely acts as a vehicle for passing on tracking identifiers issued by the master tracking computer system 310 to the end user computers 308, whereas the centralized postage-issuing computer system 307 actually issues tracking identifiers from a previously stored pool of unassigned tracking identifiers, which are periodically downloaded from the master tracking computer system 310. In contrast to the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306/307, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305 does not take part in the tracking identifier issuing process. In this case, it is the master tracking computer system 310, rather than the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305, that transmits tracking identifiers to the end user computers 308 over communications links 322 in response to requests by the end user computers 308.
In the illustrated embodiment, the master tracking computer system 310 is owned and operated by a postal authority (such as, e.g., the USPS), and is the principal device for allocating tracking identifiers either directly to the end user computers 308 over communications links 322, or directly to the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306 or 307 over communications links 316, which then ultimately be transmitted to the end user computers 308 over the communications links 314. In an alternative embodiment, the master tracking computer system 310 is operated outside of the postal service 304. Because the USPS currently maintains such a master tracking service, however, it is preferable that the master tracking computer system 310 be contained within the postal service 304. The postage validation computer system 312 is owned and operated by the postal authority, and is the principal device for verifying the postage on mail pieces. Although in the illustrated embodiment, the postage validation computer system 312 performs stand-alone verification, if additional validating information is needed, the postage validation computer system 312 may optionally receive end user information from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307 over communications links 318, or postage information associated with the tracking identifiers from the master tracking computer system 310 over communications links 320.
Turning now to
The mail handling modules 412 include a tracking identifier request module 414, postage indicia request module 416, communications module 418, tracking identifier printing module 420, and postage indicia printing module 422. The tracking identifier request module 414 is configured for generating a request for a unique tracking identifier. In the illustrated embodiment, this request takes the form of a query stream (e.g., in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format), and contains postage information to be associated with the unique tracking identifier, (such as, e.g., an Application D Program Interface (API) user account ID and password, destination address for the mail piece, sender's complete address, weight of the mail piece, service class, and the amount of postage). The postage indicia request module 416 is configured for generating a request for a self-validating unique postage indicium. In the illustrated embodiment, this request takes the form of a query stream (e.g., in XML format), and contains information specific to the immediate postage dispensing transaction (such as, e.g., the user's meter or account ID, the user account password, postage requested, service class, optional data advance, and ZIP+4+2 of the delivery address). If used in conjunction with the tracking identifier request module 414, the request generated by the postage indicia request module 416 will also contain the unique tracking identifier when received from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307.
The communications module 418 is configured for handling communications with the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307 over the communications link 314 (such as, e.g., transmitting tracking identifier requests and postage indicium requests and receiving tracking identifiers and self-validating unique postage indicia in response thereto). The communications module 418 is also configured for handling communications with the master tracking computer system 310 over the communications link 322 (such as, e.g., transmitting tracking identifier requests and receiving tracking identifiers in response thereto). It should be noted that the USPS currently provides a tracking identifier service called “Webtools Shipping API,” which allows end user computer 308 to obtain unique tracking identifiers directly from its server. The tracking identifier printing module 420 is configured for printing the one-dimensional barcode 220 corresponding to the tracking identifier received from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306/307 on the label 200. The postage indicia printing module 422 is configured for printing on the label 200 the two-dimensional barcode 206 corresponding to the self-validating unique postage indicium A) received from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307.
Referring specifically to
For example, the customer database 428 may contain the following information: meter/license number, account status (active, hold, canceled, etc.), account name, account password (typically encrypted), user's name, user's company, user's street address, user's city, user's state, user's postal code, descending balance, ascending balance, current piece count (last serial number used), origin/finance ZIPS (for US Market), origin/finance city, origin/finance state, date initially placed in service, date of last transaction, maximum postage allowable per self-validating unique postage indicium, minimum allowable balance, minimum re-credit amount, maximum re-credit amount, user's cryptographic private signing key (typically itself encrypted), credit card or ACH account numbers (typically encrypted), and account comments. The postage database 430 may contain the following information: date/time of transaction, piece number (serial number), weight, mail class, amount, destination address information, or public key reference number (indicating which key was used by the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306 to digitally sign the unique postage indicium for this postage dispensing event). The finance database 432 may contain the following information: date/time postage dispensed, amount of transaction, type of funds transfer (e.g., credit card, check, etc.), and identifying ID (e.g., credit card number, check number). Although the local memory 424 is depicted in
The postage dispensing modules 426 include a communications module 434, database management module 436, tracking identifier request module 438, postage indicium request validation module 440, and postage indicium generation module 442. The communications module 434 is configured for handling communications with the end user computers 308 over the communications links 314 (such as, e.g., receiving tracking identifier requests and postage indicium requests and transmitting tracking identifiers and unique postage indicia). The database management module 436 is configured for storing and retrieving pertinent information in and from the customer database 428, postage database 430, and finance database 432 with the pertinent information. The postage indicium request validation module 440 is configured for validating postage indicium requests received from the end user computer 308 by, e.g., validating the meter or account ID and account password in the postage indicium request in relation to the same information contained in the customer database 428. The postage indicium generation module 442, along with a corresponding private key 444, is configured for generating the self-validating unique postage indicium in response to each postage indicium request received from the end user computer 308.
In generating the self-validating unique postage indicium, the postage indicium generation module 442 comprises (1) a postage indicium generation submodule 446 for generating a unique postage indicium containing the tracking identifier and/or postage vendor ID/user account/piece count; (2) a digital signature generation submodule 448 for deriving a digital signature from the unique postage indicium using the private key 444; and (3) an association submodule 450 for associating the digital signature with the unique postage indicium to generate the self-validating unique postage indicium.
It should be noted that certain cryptographically important operations are optionally performed in a specialized cryptographic coprocessor such as the FIPS-140/Level 4 IBM 458 co-processor. For instance, in the preferred embodiment, the private signing key appears in an unencrypted, operational form only within the confines of the co-processor. Similarly, the decryption of the postage indicium request and the subsequent authentication of said request is also handled inside the cryptographic co-processor. While these functions can be performed in a generalized computer operating system environment, the addition of the cryptographic coprocessor to the overall schema provides for an ultra-secure environment that is resistant to both outsider and insider attacks.
In the illustrated embodiment, the self-validating unique postage indicium contains the same information as the postage indicium set forth in Table 1, with the exception that the destination zip code has been replaced with the tracking identifier (if the postage indicium request contains a tracking identifier) and the account-specific piece count has been moved into the portion of the postage indicium that is digitally signed, as set forth in Table 2.
The “Indicia Version Number” identifies the version number assigned by the USPS to the indicia data set. The “Algorithm ID” identifies the digital signature algorithm used to create the digital signature on the postage indicium. The “Certificate Serial Number” identifies the unique serial number of the certificate issued by the IBIP Certificate Authority. The “Device ID” identifies the USPS-assigned ID for each postage vendor, and the user account for which the postage indicium will be issued. The “Ascending Register” identifies the total monetary value of all postage indicia ever produced for the user account. The “Postage” identifies the amount that will be applied to the mail piece. The “Date” identifies the date of mailing for a mail piece on which the postage indicium will be applied. The “License ZIP” identifies the 5-digit zip code for the licensing post office. The “Tracking Number” identifies the unique tracking identifier issued by the USPS for that particular mail piece. The “Piece Count” identifies the serial number for the mail piece produced for that user account. The “Software ID” identifies the end user computer software ID number. The “Descending Register” identifies the postage value remaining in the user account. The “Rate Category” identifies the postage class, including any presort discount Ad level, and rate. The “Signature” is the digital signature of items 1-13. It should be noted, however, that the digital signature can be derived from any combination of the items, provided that the unique tracking number is included in the digital signing process.
The overall advantage of this approach is that it inserts at least one unique identifier in the digitally signed portion of the postage indicium. Not only does this allow detection of copy fraud, but the use of a tracking identifier, which is scanned 100% of the time, leads to other security advantages. And this approach meets the current USPS desire to validate mail pieces in a stand-alone environment. The scan will validate the digital signature on the postage indicium and present the tracking identifier instead of the destination zip code in the case of tracked packages. There are other reasons for replacing the destination zip code in the digitally signed contents of the postage indicium. Not only is the destination zip code not unique, in many cases it does not exist. For instance, mail pieces sent from the United States to foreign countries do not contain a destination zip code in the postage indicium. Also, there is a class of IBIP-related technologies, such as postage strip printers and IBIP “sheet stamps,” that do not include a destination zip code in the postage indicium. Since both venues print the address in a separate and distinct operation from the postage indicium printing, the USPS has permitted the destination zip code field in the postage indicium to be set to zeroes. This opens the door for copy fraud.
Optionally, the destination zip code may be appended to the “vendor portion” of the postage indicium, which is an area of the postage indicium that is not scanned by the USPS and not digitally signed.
Referring specifically to
Referring specifically to
In addition to the previously described components, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 307 comprises a local memory 452, which in addition to the previously described databases, stores a tracking identifier database 454 of pre-stored unassigned tracking identifiers received by the master tracking computer system 310, and a tracking information database 456 for storing each tracking identifier that has been issued to an end user computer 308 and the postage information associated with each tracking identifier, i.e., the information contained in the tracking identifier request. The centralized postage-issuing computer system 307 further comprises a set of postage dispensing modules 458, which in addition to the previously described modules, includes a tracking identifier allocation module 460 in place of the tracking identifier request module 438, and a database management module 462 in place of the database management module 436. The tracking identifier allocation module 460 is configured for allocating unique tracking identifiers from the tracking identifier database 454 to the end user computers 308 in response to receiving tracking identifier requests from the end user computers 308. In addition to performing the afore-described functions, the database management module 462 is further configured for storing pools of unassigned tracking identifiers within the tracking identifier database 454 as they are periodically received by the master tracking computer system 310, and for periodically retrieving postage information from the tracking information database 456 for transmission to the master tracking computer system 310.
Referring specifically to
The tracking identifier maintenance modules 470 include a communications module 474, tracking identifier allocation module 476, and database management module 478. The communications module 474 is configured for handling communications with the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306/307 over the communications links 316, or with end user computers 308 over the communications links 322 (such as, e.g., receiving single tracking identifier requests and transmitting tracking identifiers to and from the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306 or end user computers 308, as well as transmitting pools of unassigned tracking identifiers and receiving assigned tracking identifiers and associated postage information to and from the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 307). The communications module 474 is also configured for handling communications with the postage validation computer system 312 over the communications link 318 (such as, e.g., receiving requests for assigned tracking identifiers, associated postage information, and current delivery status, and transmitting the assigned tracking identifiers, associated postage information, and current delivery status). The tracking identifier allocation module 476 is configured for generating unique tracking identifiers in response to receiving tracking identifier requests from the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 306, or optionally from the end user computers 308. The database management module 478 is configured for storing and retrieving assigned tracking identifiers and associated postage information to and from the tracking information database 472. Although the local memory 468 is depicted in
Referring specifically to
The postage validation modules 488 include a communications module 492, database management module 493, a postage indicia validation module 494, and unique identifier comparison module 495. The communications module 492 is configured for handling communications with the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 305/306/307 over the communications links 318 (such as, e.g., receiving updated end user computer information and public key information). The communications module 492 is also configured for handling communications with the master tracking computer system 310 over the communications link 320 (such as, e.g., transmitting requests for tracking identifier associated postage information and receiving the tracking identifier associated postage information). The database management module 493 is configured for storing and retrieving pertinent information to and from the meter information database 490 and transaction database 491.
The postage indicia validation module 494 is configured for validating the postage indicia, and includes a public key association submodule 496 for selecting a public key from the set of public keys 497, as dictated by the certificate serial number (item #3 in Table 2) in the self-validating unique postage indicium, and a digital signature verification submodule 498, along with a selected public key, configured for verifying the digital signature in the self-validating unique postage indicium.
The unique identifier comparison module 495 is configured for comparing the digitally authenticated unique identifier contained in the postage indicium to all of the unique identifiers previously stored in the transaction database 491 to detect copy fraud. That is, a match means that the unique identifier has been previously used, which is an indication of copy fraud.
Referring specifically to
At steps 506-510, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306 receives the tracking identifier request from the end user computer 308, and generates an identical tracking identifier request, and transmits the tracking identifier request to the master tracking computer system 310. In particular, the communications interface 423, under control of the communications module 434, receives the tracking identifier request over the communications link 314 (step 506). The tracking identifier request module 438 then generates a tracking identifier request with the associated postage information, which is identical to the tracking identifier request received from the end user computer 308 (step 508). Optionally, the database management module 436 stores the tracking information within a database, such as, e.g., a tracking information database (not shown). The communications interface 423 then, under control of the communications module 434, transmits the tracking identifier request over the communications link 316 (step 510).
At steps 512-518, the master tracking computer system 310 receives the tracking identifier request from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306, allocates a unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308, records the unique tracking identifier, along with the associated postage information, and transmits the unique tracking identifier to the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306. In particular, the communications interface 466, under control of the communications module 474, receives the tracking identifier request over the communications link 316 (step 512). The tracking identifier allocation module 476 then allocates a unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308, which typically will be the next tracking identifier in a series of tracking identifiers (step 514). The database management module 478 then stores the unique tracking identifier, as well as the associated postage information contained within the tracking identifier request received from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306, within the tracking information database 472 (step 516). The communications interface 466 then, under control of the communications module 474, transmits the unique tracking identifier over the communications link 316 (step 518).
At steps 520 and 522, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306 receives the unique tracking identifier from the master tracking computer system 310 and transmits the unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308. In particular, the communications interface 423, under control of the communications module 434, receives the unique tracking identifier over the communications link 316 (step 520). The communications interface 423 then, under control of the communications module 434, transmits the tracking identifier over the communications link 314 (step 522).
At steps 524 and 526, the end user computer 308 receives the tracking identifier from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306 and prints the tracking identifier on the label 200. In particular, the communications interface 410, under control of the communications module 418, receives the unique tracking identifier over the communications link 314 (step 524). The tracking identifier printing module 420 then prints on the label 200 the standard tracking identifier 218 as the one-dimensional barcode 220 (step 526).
Referring specifically to
At steps 534-540, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 307 receives the tracking identifier request from the end user computer 308, allocates a unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308, records the unique tracking identifier, along with the associated postage information, and transmits the unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308. In particular, the communications interface 423, under control of the communications module 434, receives the tracking identifier request over the communications link 314 (step 534). The tracking identifier allocation module 460 then allocates a unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308, which typically will be the next tracking identifier in a series of tracking identifiers stored in the tracking identifier database 454 (step 536). The database management module 462 then stores within the tracking information database 456 the unique tracking identifier, as well as the associated postage information contained within the tracking identifier request received from the end user computer 308 (step 538). The communications interface 423 then, under control of the communications module 434, transmits the tracking identifier over the communications link 314 (step 540).
At steps 542 and 544, the end user computer 308 receives the tracking identifier from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 306 and prints the tracking identifier on the label 200. Steps 542 and 544 are similar to steps 526 and 528 described with respect to
The procedure for performing these downloading and uploading functions are now described with respect to
At steps 554-560, the master tracking computer system 310 generates a pool of unassigned tracking identifiers and transmits it to the centralized postage-issuing computer system 307, and the centralized postage-issuing computer system 307 receives the pool of unassigned unique tracking identifiers from the master tracking computer system 310 and records it. In particular, the database management module 478 generates a pool of unassigned unique tracking identifiers (step 554). The communications interface 466 then, under control of the communications module 474, transmits the pool of unassigned tracking identifiers over the communications link 316 (step 556). The communications interface 423, under control of the communications module 434, receives the tracking information over the communications link 316 (step 558). The database management module 462 then stores the pool of unassigned unique tracking identifiers in the tracking identifier database 454 (step 560).
Referring specifically to
At steps 568-572, the master tracking computer system 310 receives the tracking identifier request from the end user computer 308, allocates a unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308, records the unique tracking identifier, along with the associated postage information, and transmits the unique tracking identifier to end user computer 308. In particular, the communications interface 466, under control of the communications module 474, receives the tracking identifier request over the communications link 322 (step 568). The tracking identifier allocation module 476 then allocates a unique tracking identifier to the end user computer 308, which typically will be the next tracking identifier in a series of tracking identifiers (step 570). The database management module 478 then stores within the tracking information database 472 the unique tracking identifier, as well as the associated postage information contained within the tracking identifier request received from the end user computer 308 (step 572). The communications interface 466 then, under control of the communications module 474, transmits the unique tracking identifier over the communications link 322 (step 574).
At steps 576 and 578, the end user computer 308 receives the tracking identifier from the master tracking computer system 310 and prints the tracking identifier on the label 200. In particular, the communications interface 410, under control of the communications module 418, receives the unique tracking identifier over the communications link 322 (step 576). The tracking identifier printing module 420 then prints on the label 200 the standard tracking identifier 218 as the one-dimensional barcode 220 (step 578).
Referring specifically to
At steps 606-618, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307 receives the postage indicium request from the end user computer 308, validates it, records the postage information contained in the postage indicium request, as well as any other transaction specific pertinent information, generates a self-validating unique postage indicium, and transmits the self-validating unique postage indicium to the end user computer 308. In particular, the communications interface 423, under control of the communications module 434, receives the postage indicium request over the communications link 314 (step 606). The postage indicium request validation module 440 then validates the postage indicium request by validating the user account ID and account password (step 608). If the user account ID or password does not correspond to an active user account, an error message is generated.
The database management module 436 then updates the customer database 428 and postage database 430 with the pertinent transaction specific information (step 610). If available, the database management module 436 will store the tracking identifier in the postage database 430. The postage indicium generation module 442 then generates the self-validating unique postage indicium (steps 612-616). Specifically, the postage indicium generation submodule 446 generates a unique postage indicium containing the items set forth in Table 2, including the unique identifier(s) (such as, e.g., the postage vendor ID/user account number in combination with the piece count or descending register number, and unique tracking identifier (if available) contained within the postage indicium request) (step 612). At this point, the unique postage indicium is not self-validating. The digital signature generation submodule 448 then derives a digital signature from the unique postage indicium by applying the private key 444 thereto (step 614). The association submodule 450 then generates the self-validating unique postage indicium by associating the digital signature with the unique postage indicium (step 616). The communications interface 423 then, under control of the communications module 434, transmits the self-validating unique postage indicium over the communications link 314 (step 618).
At steps 620 and 622, the end user computer 308 receives the self-validating unique postage indicium from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307 and prints it on the label 200. In particular, the communications interface 410, under control of the communications module 418, receives the self-validating unique postage indicium over the communications link 314 (step 620). The postage indicia printing module 420 then prints on the label 200 the two-dimensional barcode 206 corresponding to the self-validating unique postage indicium (step 622). The label 200 can then be applied to the appropriate mail piece.
It should be noted that although the tracking identifier acquisition and printing processes described with respect to
Referring to specifically
At steps 704-706, the postal verifier validates the postage indicium itself by operating the postage indicia validation module 494. In particular, the public key association submodule 496 obtains from the set of public keys 497 the public key corresponding to the Certificate Serial Number (item #3 in Table 2) within the postage indicium (step 704). The digital signature verification submodule 498 then verifies the digital signature of the postage indicium (step 706) to determine if they are consistent. If the signature verification process returns a Boolean true, this indicates that the postage indicium was in fact generated by a secure central computer 305/306/307 for a mail piece of the same approximate weight, origin and destination as the mail piece being processed.
This will not, however, detect copy fraud. Thus, at step 708, the unique identifier comparison module 495 compares the unique identifier(s) of the mail piece (i.e., the unique tracking identifier (if available), and the postage vendor ID/user account/piece count (or ascending register)) with the set of unique identifiers previously stored in the transaction database 491. If the unique identifier of the current mail piece matches at least one of the unique identifiers stored in the transaction database 491, copy fraud is assumed, or at least suspected. If the unique identifier of the current mail piece does not match at least one of the unique identifiers stored in the transaction database 491, copy fraud is not assumed, although copy fraud may be detected if a fraudulent duplicate of the postage indicium is subsequently processed.
It is worth noted that copy fraud detection using this process works with respect to any mail piece of any nature only if the unique identifiers contained in the postage indicia of all mail pieces are scanned and entered into the transaction database 491. Alternatively, copy fraud detection using this process works with respect to any mail piece that carries a tracking identifier if the tracking identifiers contained in the postage indicia of all of these types of mail pieces are scanned and entered into the transaction database 491. Currently, however, the USPS only spot checks the postage indicia, and thus copy fraud may be currently difficult to detect using copy fraud—at least until the USPS scans 100% of the postage indicia. For example, if the postage indicia is checked only 10% of time, statistically, copy fraud will only be detected 1% of the time.
Alternatively, when spot checking is the norm, detection of copy fraud in mail pieces that carry unique tracking identifiers can be maximized by comparing the unique tracking identifier contained in the postage indicium with the standard tracking identifier printed on the mail piece (step 710). Thus, if the unique tracking identifier contained in the postage indicium does not match the tracking identifier contained elsewhere on the mail piece, copy fraud is suspected. It is noted that the one-dimensional barcode 220 associated with the tracking identifier is scanned 100% of the time in the normal course of the USPS tracking business, and thus, a copyist will not attempt to duplicate one-dimensional barcodes 220 along with the unique postage indicia, but will rather only attempt to duplicate the unique postage indicia hoping that the tracking identifiers contained therein will not be compared with the tracking identifiers associated with the one-dimensional barcodes 220. Thus, if the postage indicia is checked 10% of the time, copy fraud will be detected 10% of the time—a significant improvement.
It should be noted that additional transaction information can be obtained from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 305/306/307 or master tracking computer system 310 over the communications links 318 and 320. This process will not be described in further detail. After the postage has been validated or rejected, the database management module 493 stores the postage information, including the unique identifier(s) contained within the postage indicium within the transaction database 491, along with the results of the validation process (step 712). If valid, the mail piece is then submitted for normal delivery processing (step 714).
With reference to
These components are generally similar to the same-named components of the postage system 300, but differ somewhat in that it provides a means for validating postage indicia in a non-stand-alone verification system using indexing identifiers. In this embodiment, in response to requests for postage from end user computers 358, each centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 generates postage indicia, and rather than transmitting it to the end user computers 358, indexes and stores the postage indicia. The postage indicia are indexed using indexing identifiers, which are transmitted to the end user computers 358 for printing on the mail pieces. In the illustrated embodiment, the indexing identifiers are unique within the postage service 354. Thus, at least for a significant period of time, e.g., one year, no two unique indexing identifiers will be identical, thereby providing a reliable means for detecting mail fraud. The unique indexing identifiers can be composed of numbers, letters, or a combination thereof, and can be composed of tracking identifiers postage vendor ID/user account/piece count (or ascending register) combinations, similar to the unique identifiers described with respect to the postage system 300.
These printed indexing identifiers can then be subsequently used by the postage service 354 to obtain the stored postage indicia from the centralized postage-issuing computer systems 356. The centralized postage indicia generation methodology offers a host of new security enhancements. Thus, if one makes the assumption that any mail piece validation tool would have access to the Internet (e.g., a laptop with a wireless Internet connection on a loading dock, or a desktop personal computer (PC) located in a mail processing facility), then one may greatly simplify the information contained on the mail piece itself if the mail piece was generated with a centralized postage service.
Turning now to
With specific reference to
Specifically, the mail handling modules 812 include an indexing identifier request module 814, communications module 818, and indexing identifier printing module 820. The indexing identifier request module 814 is configured for generating a request for an indexing identifier. In the illustrated embodiment, this request takes the form of a query stream (e.g., in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format), and contains information specific to the immediate postage dispensing transaction (such as, e.g., the user's meter or account ID, the user account password, postage requested, service class, optional data advance, and ZIP+4+2 of the delivery address). The communications module 818 is configured for handling communications with the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 over the communications link 364 (such as, e.g., transmitting indexing identifier requests and receiving indexing identifiers in response thereto). The indexing identifier printing module 820 is configured for printing an indexing identifier 203 received from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 on a label 201. The completed label 201 is similar to the completed label 200 illustrated in
The indexing identifier can be printed on the label 201 in various formats. For example,
Thus, the use of smaller two-dimensional barcodes or the simpler one-dimensional barcodes or digital data reduces the footprint required on the mail piece, and leaves that much more room for addressing, advertising, etc. This reduction in data also reduces the load on high speed printers, which have difficulty placing custom, non-static barcode images on mail pieces without compromising their rated speed (often 10,000-30,000 pieces per hour). Standard text can be printed at full speed, and most high-speed printers have one-dimensional barcode software (e.g., Code 128) in the printer firmware. Therefore, use of an indexing identifier, rather than a full postage indicium, opens the IBIP market to mass mailers, which account for the bulk of USPS letter mail revenue. Not only will use of the indexing identifier reduce printing costs, it will also reduce capital expenditure costs for barcode reading hardware. If OCR readable data is used for the indexing identifier, OCR capabilities, which the USPS already has extensive experience, can be used.
With specific reference to
Specifically, the postage dispensing modules 826 include a communications module 834, database management module 836, indexing module 838, indexed identifier request validation module 840, and postage indicium generation module 842. The communications module 834 is configured for handling communications with the end user computers 358 over the communications links 364 (such as, e.g., receiving indexing identifier requests and transmitting indexing identifiers). The database management module 836 is configured for storing and retrieving pertinent information in and from the customer database 828, postage database 830, and finance database 832, as well as for storing and retrieving indexed postage indicia in and from the postage indicia database 831. The postage indicia can include, e.g., the postage amount, date and time the postage indicium was created, service class, optional data advance, delivery zip code, and tracking identifier (if the mail piece is a tracked piece). The indexing identifier request validation module 840 is configured for validating indexing identifier requests received from the end user computer 358 by, e.g., validating the meter or account ID and account password in the indexing identifier request in relation to the same information contained in the customer database 828.
The postage indicium generation module 842, along with a corresponding private key 844, is configured for generating a self-validating postage indicium in response to each indexing identifier request received from the end user computer 358. In generating the self-validating postage indicium, the postage indicium generation module 842 comprises (1) a postage indicium generation submodule 846 for generating a postage indicium; (2) a digital signature generation submodule 848 for deriving a digital signature from the postage indicium using the private key 844; and (3) an association submodule 850 for associating the digital signature with the postage indicium to generate the self-validating postage indicium. In the illustrated embodiment, the self-validating postage indicium contains the same information as the postage indicium previously set forth in Table 2. The indexing module 838 is configured for associating the indexing identifier transmitted to the end user computer 358 with the postage indicium stored within the postage indicia database 831.
It is noted that the elimination of the digital signature on the mail piece itself does not compromise security, since the postage indicium stored in the postage indicia database 831 of the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 is digitally signed in accordance with the USPS IBIP specifications. The presence of the digital signature somewhere in the security model addresses one major concern of the USPS—that fraud attacks are very likely to involve “insiders” employed by the postage vendor. To further ensure that the security system is impervious to even an insider attack, all security-critical operations such as indicium signing are actually accomplished within a Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS-140/Level 4)-approved, physically secure coprocessor device (such as, e.g., an IBM 4758).
With specific reference to
The postage validation modules 888 include a communications module 892, database management module 893, postage indicia validation module 894, and postage indicia request module 895. The postage indicia request module 895 is configured for generating a request for postage indicium. In the illustrated embodiment, this request takes the form of a query stream (e.g., in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format), and contains the indexing identifier read from the mail piece and a password. The communications module 818 is configured for handling communications with the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 over the communications link 368 (such as, e.g., transmitting postage indicium requests and receiving postage indicia in response thereto). The postage indicia validation module 894 is configured for validating the postage indicia obtained from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356, and includes a public key association submodule 896, public keys 897, and digital signature verification submodule 898, which are similar to the same-named components in the previously described postage validation computer system 312, and will thus not be further described.
Referring to specifically
At steps 906-910, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 receives and validates the indexing identifier request from the end user computer 358, and records the postage information contained in the postage indicium request, as well as any other transaction specific pertinent information. In particular, the communications interface 822, under control of the communications module 834, receives the indexing identifier request over the communications link 364 (step 906). The indexing identifier request validation module 840 then validates the indexing identifier request by validating the user account ID and account password (step 908). If the user account ID or password does not correspond to an active user account, an error message is generated. The database management module 836 then updates the customer database 828 and postage database 830 with the pertinent transaction specific information (step 910).
At steps 912-916, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 then generates the self-validating unique postage indicium. Specifically, the postage indicium generation submodule 946 generates a postage indicium containing the items set forth in Table 2 (step 912). The digital signature generation submodule 848 then derives a digital signature from the postage indicium by applying the private key 844 thereto (step 914). The association submodule 850 then generates the self-validating postage indicium by associating the digital signature with the postage indicium (step 916).
At steps 918-922, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 then indexes and records the self-validating postage indicium, and transmits the indexing identifier to the end user computer 358. Specifically, the indexing module 838 indexes the self-validating postage indicium by associating the indexing identifier therewith (step 918). The database management module 836 then stores the indexed self-validating postage indicium in the postage indicia database 831 (step 920). The communications interface 822 then, under control of the communications module 834, transmits the indexing identifier over the communications link 314 (step 922).
At steps 924 and 926, the end user computer 554 receives the indexing identifier from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 and prints it on the label 201. In particular, the communications interface 810, under control of the communications module 818, receives the indexing identifier over the communications link 364 (step 924). The indexing identifier printing module 820, prompted by the end user via the user interface, then prints on the label 201 the two-dimensional barcode 256, either of the one-dimensional barcodes 258 or 260, or the alpha-numerical data 262 (step 926). The label 201 can then be applied to the appropriate mail piece.
Referring to specifically
At step 1000, the postal verifier operates a postage scanning station 884 within the postage validation computer system 362 to read the indexing identifier (i.e., the two-dimensional barcode 256, one-dimensional codes 258 or 260, or alpha-numerical data 262) on the label 201 of the mail piece and display its contents to the verifier.
At steps 1002-1004, the postage validation computer system 362 requests from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 the self-validating postage indicium associated with the indexing identifier read from the mail piece. In particular, the postage indicia request module 895 generates a postage indicium request carrying the indexing identifier and the password (step 1002). The communications interface 882 then, under control of the communications module 892, transmits the postage indicium request over the communications link 368 (step 1004).
At steps 1004-1010, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 then receives the postage indicium request, and retrieves and transmits to the postage validation computer system 362 the self-validating postage indicium corresponding to the inspected mail piece. In particular, the communications interface 822, under control of the communications module 834, receives the postage indicium request over the communications link 368 (step 1006). The database management module 836 then retrieves from the postage indicia database 831 the self-validating postage indicium corresponding to the received indexing identifier (step 1008). The communications interface 822 then, under control of the communications module 834, transmits the self-validating postage indicium over the communications link 368 (step 1010).
At steps 1012 and 1014, the postage validation computer system 362 receives the self-validating postage indicium from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 and displays its contents to the postal verifier. In particular, the communications interface 882 then, under control of the communications module 892, receives the self-validating postage indicium from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 over the communications link 368 (step 1012), and the postage scanning station 884 displays its contents to the postal verifier (step 1012). At step 1014, the verifier then manually compares the contents of the self-validating postage indicium to the human-readable information (e.g., mailing date, postage amount, origin of mail piece, and destination of mail piece) on the mail piece. If the contents of the self-validating postage indicium do not match the human-readable information, this is an indication of likely fraudulent use of a postage indicium and is treated as such.
At steps 1016-1018, the postal verifier validates the postage indicium itself by operating the postage indicia validation module 894. In particular, the public key association submodule 896 obtains from the set of public keys 897 the public key corresponding to the Certificate Serial Number (item #3 in Table 2) within the postage indicium (step 1016). The digital signature verification submodule 898 then verifies the digital signature of the postage indicium to determine if they are consistent (step 1018). If the verification process returns a Boolean true, this indicates that the postage indicium was in fact generated by a secure central computer 356 for a mail piece of the same approximate weight, origin and destination as the mail piece being processed. If copy fraud is to be detected, a copy fraud detection process using unique identifiers or similar to the process disclosed with respect to
After the postage has been validated or rejected, the database management module 893 stores the postage information, along with the results of the validation process (step 1020). If valid, the mail piece is then submitted for normal delivery processing (step 1022).
It should be noted that rather than have the postal verifier validate the postage indicium, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 itself can validate the postage indicium. In this case, the postage indicia validation module 894 will be located in the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356. Thus, after the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 retrieves the self-validating postage indicium corresponding to the indexing identifier at step 1008, it will validate the postage indicium itself using a corresponding public key. If it is valid, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 will transmit a Boolean true, along with the already validated postage indicium, to the postage validation computer system 362, which will then perform postage validation steps 1014, 1016, 1018, and 1020. If it is invalid, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 will transmit a Boolean false to the postage validation computer system 362, which will then store the results of the validation process as being invalid at step 1020.
The use of a tracking identifier as an indexing identifier not only allows the postal service to validate the postage on mail pieces that bear the tracking identifier, it provides the recipient of the mail piece a means for verifying that the mail piece was sent from a trusted individual. Referring to
The centralized postage-issuing computer 356 is configured in the same manner as previously described, but now optionally stores information relating to the sender of the mail piece. This can be stored in the postage database 830 or elsewhere. In reality, as a matter of course, the sender information is routinely stored in the centralized postage-issuing computer 356, as well as transmitted to the USPS, when the sender obtains an account with the postage vendor. Thus, these “meter holders” are known to the postage vendor and the USPS, and can be considered to be trusted individuals or entities.
Importantly, this sender identification information, along with postage information, can be easily retrieved by the centralized postage-issuing computer 356 upon receipt of the indexing identifier, and specifically, an associated tracking identifier. With specific reference to
The sender identification request module 1314 is configured for generating a request for sender identification information, along with associated postage information. In the illustrated embodiment, this request takes the form of a query stream (e.g., in Extensible Markup Language (XML) format), and contains the unique tracking identifier printed on the received mail piece. The communications module 1318 is configured for handling communications with the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 over the communications link 384 (such as, e.g., transmitting sender identification requests and receiving sender identification information and associated postage information in response thereto).
Referring to
At steps 1406-1410, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 then receives the sender identification request, and retrieves and transmits to the mail recipient computer 378 the sender identification information and associated postage information corresponding to the received mail piece. In particular, the communications interface 822, under control of the communications module 834, receives the sender identification request over the communications link 384 (step 1406). The database management module 836 then retrieves from the postage database 830 the sender identification information and associated postage information corresponding to the received tracking identifier (step 1408). The communications interface 822 then, under control of the communications module 834, transmits the sender identification information with the associated postage information over the communications link 384 (step 1410).
At steps 1412 and 1414, the mail recipient computer 378 receives the sender identification information and associated postage information from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 and displays it to the mail recipient. In particular, the communications interface 1302 then, under control of the communications module 1318, receives the sender identification information and associated postage information from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356 over the communications link 384 (step 1412), and the user interface 1302 displays this information to the mail recipient (step 1414), and specifically in a window similar to that illustrated in
The use of a tracking identifier in the postage indicium or as an indexing identifier not only facilitates the postal service in detecting postage fraud and protecting package recipients from insidious individuals, but also facilitates the postal service in issuing refunds for unused postage. Consider a misprint scenario where an end user attempts to print an Express Mail label and the printing process fails in some way even though the postage was issued. The end user still wants to ship the package, so he/she will take corrective measures and print a second Express Mail label. The second label will have the identical destination address (in particular the same ZIP+4+2 zip code, the same postage amount, but a different tracking identifier, which is issued on a per-print basis. This scenario creates a database structure that conceptually holds the information set forth in Table 3 below.
A digital signature protects the integrity of the information in the database. It should be noted that the data set forth in Table 3 alone is strongly suggestive of a misprint scenario. But a much stronger case can be made several days later, when the tracking identifiers can be statused against the postal authority's (e.g., USPS) tracking system using a simple Internet transaction. If the end user never mailed a package with the first label (tracking identifier 330343434334), it will never achieve a status of “delivered.” On the other hand, one should see a “delivered” status on the second transaction if one waits a sufficient amount of time (e.g., 2-10 days).
With reference to
These components are generally similar to the same-named components of the postage system 300, but differ somewhat in that it provides a means for providing refunds for unused postage. In this embodiment, in response to postage refund inquiries from an account administrator, each centralized postage-issuing computer system 386 retrieves previously stored postage transaction information, which contains, for each postage transaction, a tracking identifier and an associated delivery status. The centralized postage-issuing computer system 386 filters the retrieved postage transaction information for pertinent refund information, and displays it to the account administrator who determines whether there is unused postage to be refunded. The delivery status within the stored postage transaction information is updated by the master tracking computer system 390.
The refund inquiry can take a variety of formats. For example, a refund eligible inquiry can reveal postage transaction information that meets the following criteria: (1) two or more transactions; (2) none of the transactions have ever been refunded in the past; (3) issued for the same account; (4) issued on the same day; (5) issued to the same destination; (6) issued for the same service class; (7) issued for the same postage amount; and (8) each transaction has an associated unique tracking identifier.
It should be noted that the date of this query is Aug. 23, 2001, and the postage transactions in question were completed three days earlier. The USPS delivery status for the first package presents the phrase “Your item was accepted at 10 pm on August 21 in Palo Alto, Calif. 94301.” This phrase is misleading in that it infers that the USPS actually took possession of this package. In reality, it only indicates the date/time in which the tracking information was posted to the master tracking computer system. When this message persists for days or weeks, one much conclude that the tracking identifier was indeed issued, but the package never entered the postal system. As another example, an audit inquiry can reveal all postage transaction information in a specific user account.
This process provides a complete audit trail even through there is no mail piece specimen. The process not only has utility for misprint scenarios that do not produce a scannable specimen, but it can also be used for misprints that do produce a scannable specimen. Normally, the specimen must be mailed to the postage vendor, which involves an additional mailing expense for the end user, as well as an additional effort for both end user and postage vendor. This process would allow end users to simply destroy misprint specimens if they met the refund criteria listed above. In essence, the evidence supporting the refund is electronic and not paper-based.
It should be noted that the entire process is enabled by the confluence of the centralized postage system concept and the unique tracking identifier. Mail pieces devoid of a unique tracking identifier would not be eligible for this refund process, nor would mail pieces created by postage metering technologies, which are not centralized (e.g., conventional postage meters or PC-postage meters that draw upon a local “vault” of funds to create postage indicia).
Means can also be provided to automatically poll the delivery status of a “refunded” mail piece after the refund is processed. This process will continue for a period of several months. If the master tracking computer system suddenly shows a change in delivery status for that refunded mail piece, an automated alert is forwarded to the postal authorities and an investigation can be launched.
A refund inquiry can also be in the form of an audit review of all postage transactions in a user account.
Turning now to
Specifically, the postage dispensing/refund eligibility modules 1126 include a communications module 1134, database management module 1136, tracking identifier request module 1138, postage indicium request validation module 1140, postage indicium generation module 1142, delivery status request module 1143, filtering module 1145, refund inquiry module 1147, and refund display module 1149. The delivery status request module 1143 is configured for generating a request for the delivery status for each tracking identifier stored in the postage database 1130. The filtering module 1145 is configured for variously generating refund information by filtering and formatting the postage transaction information retrieved from the postage database 1130, as will be described in further detail below. In addition to being configured for providing the communications previously described with respect to the communications module 434, the communications module 1134 is configured for transmitting delivery status requests to, and receiving confirmatory delivery status information from, the master tracking computer system 390 over the communications link 396.
The database management module 1136 is configured for storing and retrieving pertinent information in and from the customer database 1128, postage database 1130, and finance database 1132. This function includes storing and retrieving a tracking identifier and an associated delivery status, and updating that associated delivery status with confirmatory delivery status information received from the master tracking computer system 390. As will be described in further detail, the confirmatory delivery status information indicates whether a mail piece carrying a tracking identifier has, in fact, been delivered. The refund inquiry module 1147 is configured for generating an inquiry for postage refund information. In the illustrated embodiment, the inquiry contains a user account ID and password and the refund inquiry, which as previously discussed, can include various types. The refund display module 1149 is configured for displaying on the display 1127 the postage refund information filtered by the filtering module 1145.
The tracking identifier request module 1138, postage indicium request validation module 1140, and postage indicium generation module 1142 (and corresponding private key 1144) are configured to perform the same functions described with respect to the tracking identifier request module 438, postage indicium request validation module 440, and postage indicium generation module 442 (and corresponding private key 444), and will thus not be described in further detail.
Alternatively, a centralized postage-issuing computer system, in combination with the refund inquiry functionality, can be constructed similarly to the centralized postage-issuing computer system 307, wherein tracking identifiers are issued to end user computers by the centralized postage-issuing computer system from a pool of pre-stored unassigned tracking identifiers, or even more alternatively, wherein no tracking identifier issuing functionality, in which case, the master tracking computer system directly issues tracking identifiers to the end user computer. A centralized postage-issuing computer system, in combination with the refund inquiry functionality, can be constructed similarly to the centralized postage-issuing computer system 356, wherein self-validating postage indicia are stored in the centralized postage-issuing computer system and indexing identifiers are transmitted to the end user computers.
Referring specifically to
The tracking information maintenance modules 1170 include a communications module 1174, tracking identifier allocation module 1176, database management module 1178, and refunded postage polling module 1180. In addition to being configured for providing the communications previously described with respect to the communications module 474, the communications module 1174 receives delivery status requests from, and transmits confirmatory delivery status information to, each centralized postage-issuing computer system 386 over the communications links 396. The confirmatory delivery status information is obtained from tracking stations (not shown), which scan tracked mail pieces when they are delivered. The tracking identifier allocation module 1176 is configured for performing the same functions as the tracking identifier allocation module 476 previously described in the master tracking computer system 310. The database management module 1178 is configured for storing and retrieving assigned tracking identifiers and associated postage information (including delivery status) to and from the tracking information database 1172. The database management module 1178 is further configured for updating the tracking information database 1172 with refund information. That is, if a specific postage transaction has been refunded, the database management module 1178 will associate a refund indicator with the postage information relating to the specific postage transaction. The refunded postage polling module 1180 periodically polls the tracking information database 1172 to determine if a mail piece associated with any refunded postage transaction has been delivered.
Referring to specifically
At step 1204, the postage transaction information, along with the tracking identifiers and associated delivery status, is recorded. Specifically, the database management module 1136 stores the postage transaction information in the postage database 1130. At step 1206, the multitude of mail pieces are processed through the postal authority, which in this case, is the USPS. At step 1208, the postal authority, upon delivery of the mail pieces to their intended destination, reads the tracking identifiers on the mail pieces. At step 1210, this delivery information is transmitted to and recorded in the master tracking computer system 390: Specifically, the database management module 1178 updates the confirmatory delivery status information in the tracking information database 1172 by changing the status from “accepted” to “delivered.”
At steps 1212 and 1214, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 386 generates and transmits a delivery status request to the master tracking computer system 390. Specifically, the delivery status request module 1143 generates a delivery status request (step 1212), and the communications interface 1122 then, under control of the communications module 1134, transmits the delivery status request over the communications link 396 (step 1214). At steps 1216-1220, the master tracking computer system 390 receives the delivery status request from the centralized postage-issuing computer system 386 and transmits the confirmatory delivery status information to the centralized postage-issuing computer system 386. Specifically, the communications interface 1166, under control of the communications module 1174, receives the delivery status request over the communications link 396 (step 1216). The database management module 1178 then retrieves the confirmatory delivery status information from the tracking information database 1172 (step 1218), and the communications interface 1166 then, under control of the communications module 1174, transmits the confirmatory delivery status information over the communications link 316 (step 1220). Alternatively, the confirmatory delivery status information can periodically be downloaded from the master tracking computer system 390 without prompting by the centralized postage-issuing computer system 386.
At steps 1222 and 1224, the centralized postage-issuing computer system 386 receives the confirmatory delivery status information from the master tracking computer system 310 and updates the delivery status within the stored postage transaction information with the confirmatory delivery status information. In particular, the communications interface 1222, under control of the communications module 1234, receives the confirmatory delivery status information over the communications link 396 (step 1222). The database management module 1136 then updates the delivery status within the postage database 1130 (step 1224). If the confirmatory delivery status information indicates that the mail piece carrying the tracking identifier has been delivered, the delivery status associated with that tracking identifier will be updated as delivered. If the confirmatory delivery status information indicates that the mail piece carrying the tracking identifier has not been delivered, the delivery status associated with that tracking identifier will be updated as not delivered.
Referring to specifically
At steps 1244 and 1246, the postal authority then enters the refunded postage transaction into the master tracking computer system 390, where the delivery status can be checked for six more months. In particular, the database management module 1178 will associate a refund indicator with the postage information relating to the refunded postage transaction (step 1244), and the refunded postage polling module 1180 periodically polls the tracking information database 1172 to determine if a mail piece associated with any refunded postage transaction has been delivered (step 1246). It should be noted that the refund process even allows an end user to initiate a refund inquiry without intervention by the account administrator. In this case, the end user will would have to wait the required minimum time to ensure the “never mailed package” doesn't show up on the tracking system, but then the process is so automatic that the refund could be instituted entirely without an account administrator's intervention.
Although particular embodiments of the present inventions have been shown and described, it will be understood that it is not intended to limit the present inventions to the preferred embodiments, and it will be obvious to those skilled in the art that various changes and modifications may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present inventions. Thus, the present inventions are intended to cover alternatives, modifications, and equivalents, which may be included within the spirit and scope of the present inventions as defined by the claims. All publications, patents, and patent applications cited herein are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety for all purposes.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/990,341, entitled “Systems and Methods for Detecting Postage Fraud Using an Indexed Lookup Procedure,” filed Nov. 20, 2001, which issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,831,518 on Nov. 9, 2010, the contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entirety.
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4253158 | McFiggins | Feb 1981 | A |
| 4378299 | Rivest | Mar 1983 | A |
| 4725718 | Sansone et al. | Feb 1988 | A |
| 4743747 | Fougere et al. | May 1988 | A |
| 4757537 | Edebnann et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
| 4763271 | Field | Aug 1988 | A |
| 4775248 | Edetmann et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
| 4800508 | Axelrod et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4802218 | Wright et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
| 4812994 | Taylor et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
| 4831554 | Storace et al. | May 1989 | A |
| 4831555 | Sansone et al. | May 1989 | A |
| 4837701 | Sansone et al. | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4841347 | Hsu | Jun 1989 | A |
| 4858138 | Talmadge | Aug 1989 | A |
| 4864618 | Wright et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4888757 | Gil | Sep 1989 | A |
| 4900903 | Wright et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4900904 | Wright et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4901241 | Schneck | Feb 1990 | A |
| 4908770 | Breault et al. | Mar 1990 | A |
| 4941091 | Breault et al. | Jul 1990 | A |
| 5008827 | Sansone et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
| 5043908 | Manduley et al. | Aug 1991 | A |
| 5085000 | Ford | Feb 1992 | A |
| 5111030 | Brasington et al. | May 1992 | A |
| 5202834 | Gilham | Apr 1993 | A |
| 5239168 | Durst, Jr. et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
| 5319562 | Whitehouse | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5319582 | Whitehouse | Jun 1994 | A |
| 5341505 | Whitehouse | Aug 1994 | A |
| 5423573 | de Passille | Jun 1995 | A |
| 5583779 | Naclerio et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
| 5606613 | Lee et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
| 5655023 | Cordery et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
| 5774554 | Gilham | Jun 1998 | A |
| 5812991 | Kara | Sep 1998 | A |
| 5822739 | Kara | Oct 1998 | A |
| 5898829 | Morikawa | Apr 1999 | A |
| 5917925 | Moore | Jun 1999 | A |
| 6005945 | Whitehouse | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6009417 | Brookner et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
| 6349292 | Sutherland et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
| 6427021 | Fischer | Jul 2002 | B1 |
| 6523014 | Pauschinger | Feb 2003 | B1 |
| 6527178 | Gordon et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
| 6547136 | Sansone | Apr 2003 | B1 |
| 6609117 | Sutherland et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
| 6687684 | Whitehouse et al. | Feb 2004 | B1 |
| 6865560 | Sansone et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
| 6886001 | Allport et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
| 6925451 | Bailey et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
| 6928422 | Sansone | Aug 2005 | B2 |
| 6996546 | Giles et al. | Feb 2006 | B1 |
| 7191158 | Ogg et al. | Mar 2007 | B2 |
| 7216110 | Ogg et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
| 7225170 | Ryan, Jr. | May 2007 | B1 |
| 7251632 | Ogg et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
| 7299210 | Weisberg et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
| 7458612 | Bennett | Dec 2008 | B1 |
| 7567940 | Engelberg et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
| 7831518 | Montgomery | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 7844553 | Whitehouse | Nov 2010 | B2 |
| 8027926 | Ogg | Sep 2011 | B2 |
| 20010044785 | Stolfo et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
| 20010056469 | Oonuki | Dec 2001 | A1 |
| 20020073039 | Ogg et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020083019 | Bystrak et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
| 20020120562 | Opiela et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
| 20020152174 | Woods | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020157003 | Beletski | Oct 2002 | A1 |
| 20020165729 | Kuebert et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
| 20030009396 | DeVries | Jan 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101143 | Montgomery | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101147 | Montgomery et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030101148 | Montgomery | May 2003 | A1 |
| 20030130954 | Carr et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
| 20040122690 | Willoughby | Jun 2004 | A1 |
| 20050121517 | Igval et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
| 20050209976 | Bailey et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
| 20110015935 | Montgomery | Jan 2011 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| 02-199939 | Aug 1990 | JP |
| Entry |
|---|
| Postal Service—Information Based Indicia Program (IBIP)—Performance Criteria for Information-Based Indicia and Security Architecture for Open IBI Postage Evidencing Systems (BCIBI-O), USPS, Jun. 25, 1999. |
| Cullen et al (Reading Encrypted Postal Indicia) (Year: 1995). |
| An Introduction to Cryptography, Version 6.5.1, Network Associates Inc. Santa Clara, CA 1999. |
| Network Associates, Inc. “An Introduction to Cryptography” vol. 6.5.1, Santa Clara, CA 1999. |
| Newsbytes: “UPS Customers Use PCs to Track Their Parcels”, Oct. 11, 1993, pN/A. |
| Non-Final Office Action as issued in U.S. Appl. No. 09/990,605, dated Aug. 7, 2015. |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20110015935 A1 | Jan 2011 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parent | 09990341 | Nov 2001 | US |
| Child | 12889139 | US |
