Using distinguishing properties to classify messages

Information

  • Patent Grant
  • 9524334
  • Patent Number
    9,524,334
  • Date Filed
    Wednesday, November 11, 2015
    8 years ago
  • Date Issued
    Tuesday, December 20, 2016
    7 years ago
Abstract
A system and method are disclosed for classifying a message. The method includes receiving the message, identifying in the message a distinguishing property; generating a signature using the distinguishing property; and comparing the signature to a database of signatures generated by previously classified messages.
Description
FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates generally to message classification. More specifically, a system and method for classifying messages that are junk email messages (spam) are disclosed.


BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

People have become increasingly dependent on email for their daily communication. Email is popular because it is fast, easy, and has little incremental cost. Unfortunately, these advantages of email are also exploited by marketers who regularly send out large amounts of unsolicited junk email (also referred to as “spam”). Spam messages are a nuisance for email users. They clog people's email box, waste system resources, often promote distasteful subjects, and sometimes sponsor outright scams


There have been efforts to block spam using spam-blocking software in a collaborative environment where users contribute to a common spam knowledge base. For privacy and efficiency reasons, the spam-blocking software generally identifies spam messages by using a signature generated based on the content of the message. A relatively straightforward scheme to generate a signature is to first remove leading and trailing blank lines then compute a checksum on the remaining message body. However, spam senders (also referred to as “spammers”) have been able to get around this scheme by embedding variations—often as random strings—in the messages so that the messages sent are not identical and generate different signatures.


Another spam-blocking mechanism is to remove words that are not found in the dictionary as well as leading and trailing blank lines, and then compute the checksum on the remaining message body. However, spammers have been able to circumvent this scheme by adding random dictionary words in the text. These superfluous words are sometimes added as white text on a white background, so that they are invisible to the readers but nevertheless confusing to the spam-blocking software.


The existing spam-blocking mechanisms have their limitations. Once the spammers learn how the signatures for the messages are generated, they can alter their message generation software to overcome the blocking mechanism. It would be desirable to have a way to identify messages that cannot be easily overcome even if the identification scheme is known. It would also be useful if any antidote to the identification scheme were expensive to implement or would incur significant runtime costs.





BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The present invention will be readily understood by the following detailed description in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein like reference numerals designate like structural elements, and in which:



FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a spam message classification network according to one embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating how to extract the distinguishing properties and use them to identify a message, according to one embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating how a user classifies a message as spam according to one embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating how the distinguishing properties are identified according to one embodiment of the present invention.



FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating the details of the email address identification step shown in FIG. 4.





DETAILED DESCRIPTION

It should be appreciated that the present invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as a process, an apparatus, a system, or a computer readable medium such as a computer readable storage medium or a computer network wherein program instructions are sent over optical or electronic communication links. It should be noted that the order of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within the scope of the invention.


A detailed description of one or more preferred embodiments of the invention is provided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate by way of example the principles of the invention. While the invention is described in connection with such embodiments, it should be understood that the invention is not limited to any embodiment. On the contrary, the scope of the invention is limited only by the appended claims and the invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications and equivalents. For the purpose of example, numerous specific details are set forth in the following description in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. The present invention may be practiced according to the claims without some or all of these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technical material that is known in the technical fields related to the invention has not been described in detail so that the present invention is not unnecessarily obscured.


An improved system and method for classifying mail messages are disclosed. In one embodiment, the distinguishing properties in a mail message are located and used to produce one or more signatures. The signatures for junk messages are stored in a database and used to classify these messages. Preferably, the distinguishing properties include some type of contact information.



FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a spam message classification network according to one embodiment of the present invention. The system allows users in the network to collaborate and build up a knowledge base of known spam messages, and uses this knowledge to block spam messages. A spam message is first received by a mail device 100. The mail device may be a mail server, a personal computer running a mail client, or any other appropriate device used to receive mail messages. A user reads the message and determines whether it is spam.


If the message is determined to be spam, the spam-blocking client 108 on the mail device provides some indicia for identifying the message. In one embodiment, the indicia include one or more signatures (also referred to as thumbprints) based on a set of distinguishing properties extracted from the message. The signatures are sent to a spam-blocking server 102, which stores the signatures in a database 104. Different types of databases are used in various embodiments, including commercial database products such as Oracle databases, files, or any other appropriate storage that allow data to be stored and retrieved. In one embodiment, the database keeps track of the number of times a signature has been identified as spam by other users of the system. The database may be located on the spam-blocking server device, on a network accessible by server 102, or on a network accessible by the mail devices. In some embodiments, the database is cached on the mail devices and updated periodically.


When another mail device 106 receives the same spam message, before it is displayed to the user, spam-blocking client software 110 generates one or more signatures for the message, and sends the signatures along with any other query information to the spam-blocking server. The spam-blocking server looks up the signatures in the database, and replies with information regarding the signatures. The information in the reply helps mail device 106 determine whether the message is spam.


Mail device 106 may be configured to use information from the spam-blocking server to determine whether the message is spam in different ways. For example, the number of times the message was classified by other users as spam may be used. If the number of times exceeds some preset threshold, the mail device processes the message as spam. The number and types of matching signatures and the effect of one or more matches may also be configured. For example, the message may be considered spam if some of the signatures in the signature set are found in the database, or the message may be determined to be spam only if all the signatures are found in the database.


Spammers generally have some motives for sending spam messages. Although spam messages come in all kinds of forms and contain different types of information, nearly all of them contain some distinguishing properties (also referred to as essential information) for helping the senders fulfill their goals. For example, in order for the spammer to ever make money from a recipient, there must be some way for the recipient to contact the spammer. Thus, some type of contact information is included in most spam, whether in the form of a phone number, an address, or a URL. Alternatively, certain types of instructions may be included. These distinguishing properties, such as contact information, instructions for performing certain tasks, stock ticker symbols, names of products or people, or any other information essential for the message, are extracted and used to identify messages. Since information that is not distinguishing is discarded, it is harder for the spammers to alter their message generation scheme to evade detection.


It is advantageous that messages other than those sent by the spammer are not likely to include the same contact information or instructions. Therefore, if suitable distinguishing properties are identified, the risk of a false positive classification as spam can be diminished.


In some embodiments, spam-blocking server 102 acts as a gateway for messages. The server includes many of the same functions as the spam-blocking client. An incoming message is received by the server. The server uses the distinguishing properties in the messages to identify the messages, and then processes the messages accordingly.



FIG. 2 is a flowchart illustrating how to extract the distinguishing properties and use them to identify a message, according to one embodiment of the present invention. First, a message is received (200). The distinguishing properties in the message are identified (202), and one or more signatures are generated based on the distinguishing properties (204). The signatures are looked up in a database (206). If the signatures are not found in the database, then the system proceeds to process the message as a normal message, delivering the message or displaying it when appropriate (208). Otherwise, if matching signatures are found in the database, some appropriate action is taken accordingly (210). In an embodiment where the process takes place on a mail client, the action includes classifying the message as spam and moving it to an appropriate junk folder. In an embodiment where the process takes place on a mail server, the action includes quarantining the message so it is recoverable by the administrator or the user.


Sometimes, a spam message is delivered to the user's inbox because an insufficient number of signature matches are found. This may happen the first time a spam message with a distinguishing property is sent, when the message is yet to be classified as spam by a sufficient number of users on the network, or when not enough variants of the message have been identified. The user who received the message can then make a contribution to the database by indicating that the message is spam. In one embodiment, the mail client software includes a “junk” button in its user interface. The user can click on this button to indicate that a message is junk. Without further action from the user, the software automatically extracts information from the message, submits the information to the server, and deletes the message from the user's inbox. In some embodiments, the mail client software also updates the user's configurations accordingly. For instance, the software may add the sender's address to a blacklist. The blacklist is a list of addresses used for blocking messages. Once an address is included in the blacklist, future messages from that address are automatically blocked.



FIG. 3 is a flowchart illustrating how a user classifies a message as spam according to one embodiment of the present invention. A spam message is received by the user (300). The user selects the message (302), and indicates that the message is junk by clicking on an appropriate button or some other appropriate means (304). The software identifies the distinguishing properties in the message (306), and generates a set of signatures based on the distinguishing properties (308). The signatures are then submitted to the database (310). Thus, matching signatures can be found in the database for messages that have similar distinguishing properties. In some embodiments, the mail client software then updates the user's configurations based on the classification (312). In some embodiments, the sender's address is added to a blacklist. The message is then deleted from the user's inbox (314).



FIG. 4 is a flowchart illustrating how the distinguishing properties are identified according to one embodiment of the present invention. Since most spammers would like to be contacted somehow, the messages often include some sort of contact information, such as universal resource locators (URL's), email addresses, Internet protocol (IP) addresses, telephone numbers, as well as physical mailing addresses. In this embodiment, the distinguishing properties of the message include contact information.


The message is preprocessed to remove some of the non-essential information (400), such as spaces, carriage returns, tabs, blank lines, punctuations, and certain HTML tags (color, font, etc.).


Distinguishing properties are then identified and extracted from the message. Since spammers often randomly change the variable portions of URL's and email addresses to evade detection, the part that is harder to change—the domain name—is included in the distinguishing properties while the variable portions are ignored. The domain name is harder to change because a fee must be paid to obtain a valid domain name, making it less likely that any spammer would register for a large number of domain names just to evade detection. The software scans the preprocessed message to identify URL's in the text, and extracts the domain names from the URL's (402). It also processes the message to identify email addresses in the text and extracts the domain names embedded in the email addresses (404).


Telephone numbers are also identified (406). After preprocessing, phone numbers often appear as ten or eleven digits of numbers, with optional parentheses around the first three digits, and optional dashes and spaces between the numbers. The numbers are identified and added to the distinguishing properties. Physical addresses are also identified using heuristics well known to those skilled in the art (408). Some junk messages may contain other distinguishing properties such as date and location of events, stock ticker symbols, etc. In this embodiment, these other distinguishing properties are also identified (410). It should be noted that the processing steps are performed in different order in other embodiments. In some embodiments, a subset of the processing steps is performed.



FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating the details of the email address identification step shown in FIG. 4. First, the message is scanned to find candidate sections that include top-level domain names (500). The top-level domain refers to the last section of an address, such as .com, .net, .uk, etc. An email address includes multiple fields separated by periods. The top-level domain determines which fields form the actual domain name, according to well-known standards. For example, the address user1@server1.mailfrontier.com has a domain name that includes two fields (mailfrontier.com), while as user2@server1.mailfrontier.co.uk has a domain name that includes three fields (mailfrontier.co.uk). Thus, the top-level domain in a candidate section is identified (502), and the domain name is determined based on the top-level domain (504).


The presence of any required characters (such as @) is checked to determine whether the address is a valid email addresses (506). If the address does not include the require characters, it is invalid and its domain name should be excluded from the distinguishing properties (514). If the required characters are included in the address, any forbidden characters (such as commas and spaces) in the address are also checked (508). If the address includes such forbidden characters, it is invalid and its domain name may be excluded from the distinguishing properties (514).


Sometimes, spammers embed decoy addresses—fake addresses that have well-known domain names—in the messages, attempting to confuse the spam-blocking software. In some embodiments, the decoy addresses are not included in the distinguishing properties. To exclude decoy addresses, an address is checked against a white list of well-known domains (510), and is excluded from the distinguishing properties if a match is found (514). If the address is not found in the white list, it belongs to the distinguishing properties (512).


In some embodiments, a similar process is used to identify URL's. The domain names of the URL's are extracted and included in the distinguishing properties, and decoy URL's are discarded. Sometimes, spammers use numerical IP addresses to hide their domain names. By searching through the message for any URL that has the form http://x.x.x.x where the x's are integers between 0-255, these numerical IP addresses are identified and included in the distinguishing properties. More crafty spammers sometimes use obscure forms of URL's to evade detection. For example, binary numbers or a single 32 bit number can be used instead of the standard dotted notation. Using methods well-known to those skilled in the art, URL's in obscure forms can be identified and included in the distinguishing properties. In some embodiments, physical addresses, events, and stock quotes are also identified.


Once the distinguishing properties have been identified, the system generates one or more signatures based on the distinguishing properties and sends the signatures to the database. The signatures can be generated using a variety of methods, including compression, expansion, checksum, or any other appropriate method. In some embodiments, the data in the distinguishing properties is used directly as signatures without using any transformation. In some embodiments, a hash function is used to produce the signatures. Various hash functions are used in different embodiments, including MD5 and SHA. In some embodiments, the hash function is separately applied to every property in the set of distinguishing properties to produce a plurality of signatures. In one embodiment, any of the distinguishing properties must meet certain minimum byte requirement for it to generate a corresponding signature. Any property that has fewer than a predefined number of bytes is discarded to lower the probability of signature collisions.


The generated signatures are transferred and stored in the database. In one embodiment, the signatures are formatted and transferred using extensible markup language (XML). In some embodiments, the signatures are correlated and the relationships among them are also recorded in the database. For example, if signatures from different messages share a certain signature combination, other messages that include the same signature combination may be classified as spam automatically. In some embodiments, the number of times each signature has been sent to the database is updated.


Using signatures to identify a message gives the system greater flexibility and allows it to be more expandable. For example, the mail client software may only identify one type of distinguishing property in its first version. In later versions, new types of distinguishing properties are added. The system can be upgraded without requiring changes in the spam-blocking server and the database.


An improved system and method for classifying a message have been disclosed. The system identifies the distinguishing properties in an email message and generates one or more signatures based on the distinguishing properties. The signatures are stored in a database and used by spam-blocking software to effectively block spam messages.


Although the foregoing invention has been described in some detail for purposes of clarity of understanding, it will be apparent that certain changes and modifications may be practiced within the scope of the appended claims. It should be noted that there are many alternative ways of implementing both the process and apparatus of the present invention. Accordingly, the present embodiments are to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive, and the invention is not to be limited to the details given herein, but may be modified within the scope and equivalents of the appended claims.

Claims
  • 1. A method for classifying messages, the method comprising: receiving an electronic message over a communication network; andexecuting instructions stored in memory, wherein execution of the instructions by a processor: scans the received electronic message to identify candidate sections that include top-level domains, wherein the scanned candidate sections include the body of the received electronic message,identifies one or more top-level domain names in each candidate section, wherein at least one of the identified top-level domain names is part of an email address,verifies that the email address associated with the at least one top-level domain name from the electronic message is valid based on detected presence of required characters,identifies that the email address associated with the at least one top-level domain name from the electronic message does not include any forbidden characters,characterizes the electronic message as having one or more distinguishing features based on the verification that the email address includes the required characters and the identification that the email address does not include the forbidden characters, wherein the distinguishing features include at least email addresses that have the required characters and that lack the forbidden characters,generates a signature for the characterized electronic message based on a set of distinguishing features; andstoring the generated signature for the electronic message in memory for comparison to subsequently received electronic messages.
  • 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the generated signature corresponds to the received electronic message characterized as being spam.
  • 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the generated signatures for spam are stored in a database that includes other signatures associated with electronic messages characterized as being spam.
  • 4. The method of claim 3, wherein the spam database includes information related to how many times a particular signature has been associated with an electronic message characterized as being spam.
  • 5. The method of claim 1 further comprising excluding email addresses associated with the received electronic message characterized as being decoys.
  • 6. The method of claim 5, wherein the exclusion of decoy email addresses is performed by comparing the verified one or more email addresses against a list of well-known domains.
  • 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the identified candidate sections further includes URLs.
  • 8. The method of claim 7, wherein the URLs have identifiable IP addresses that are characterized as one or more distinguishing features for the received electronic message.
  • 9. The method of claim 1, wherein generation of the signature includes transformation of the set of distinguishing features via compression, expansion, or checksum.
  • 10. The method of claim 1, wherein generation of the signature is based on the use of the set of distinguishing features without any transformation.
  • 11. The method of claim 1, wherein generation of the signature is performed using a hash function.
  • 12. The method of claim 1 further comprising correlating the stored signatures thereby obtaining one or more relationships that is used to characterize subsequently received electronic messages.
  • 13. A system for classifying messages, comprising: a user device that receives electronic messages over a communication network;a processor that executes instructions stored in memory to: scan the received electronic messages from the mail device to identify candidate sections that include top-level domains, wherein the scanned candidate sections include the body of the received electronic message,identify one or more top-level domains in each candidate section, wherein at least one of the identified top-level domain names is part of an email address,verify that an email address associated with the at least one top-level domain name from the electronic message is valid based on detected presence of required characters,identify that the email address associated with the electronic message does not include any forbidden characters,characterize the electronic message as having one or more distinguishing features based on the verification that the email address has the required characters and the identification that the email addresses does not include the forbidden characters, wherein the distinguishing features include at least email addresses that have the required characters and that lack the forbidden characters, andgenerate a signature for the characterized electronic message based on a set of distinguishing features; anda server that stores the generated signature for the electronic message for comparison to subsequently received electronic messages.
  • 14. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, having embodied thereon a program executable by a processor to perform a method for classifying messages, the method comprising: receiving an electronic message over a communication network; andscanning the received electronic message to identify candidate sections that include top-level domains, wherein the scanned candidate sections include the body of the received electronic message;identifying one or more top-level domain names in each candidate section, wherein at least one of the identified top-level domain names is part of an email address;verifying that the email address associated with the at least one top-level domain name from the electronic message is valid based on detected presence of required characters;identifying that the email address associated with the at least one top-level domain name from the electronic message does not include any forbidden characters;characterizing the electronic message as having one or more distinguishing features based on the verification that the email address includes the required characters and the identification that the email address does not include the forbidden characters, wherein the distinguishing features include at least email addresses that have the required characters and that lack the forbidden characters;generating a signature for the characterized electronic message based on a set of distinguishing features; andstoring the generated signature for the electronic message in memory for comparison to subsequently received electronic messages.
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

The present application is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/912,055 filed Jun. 6, 2013, issuing as U.S. Pat. No. 9,189,516, which is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of Ser. No. 13/015,526 filed Jan. 27, 2011, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,484,301, which is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/926,819 filed Oct. 29, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,882,189, which is a continuation and claims the priority benefit of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/371,987 filed Feb. 20, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,266,215, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein by reference. The present application is related to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/371,977 filed Feb. 20, 2003, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,299,261, the disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference.

US Referenced Citations (202)
Number Name Date Kind
5905777 Foladare et al. May 1999 A
5999929 Goodman Dec 1999 A
6023723 McCormick et al. Feb 2000 A
6052709 Paul Apr 2000 A
6072942 Stockwell et al. Jun 2000 A
6076101 Kamakura et al. Jun 2000 A
6112227 Heiner Aug 2000 A
6161130 Horvitz et al. Dec 2000 A
6199102 Cobb Mar 2001 B1
6234802 Pella et al. May 2001 B1
6266692 Greenstein Jul 2001 B1
6330590 Cotton Dec 2001 B1
6373985 Hu et al. Apr 2002 B1
6421709 McCormick et al. Jul 2002 B1
6424997 Buskirk, Jr. et al. Jul 2002 B1
6438690 Patel et al. Aug 2002 B1
6453327 Nielsen Sep 2002 B1
6539092 Kocher Mar 2003 B1
6546416 Kirsch Apr 2003 B1
6549957 Hanson et al. Apr 2003 B1
6591291 Gabber Jul 2003 B1
6615242 Riemers Sep 2003 B1
6615348 Gibbs Sep 2003 B1
6640301 Ng Oct 2003 B1
6643686 Hall Nov 2003 B1
6650890 Irlam et al. Nov 2003 B1
6654787 Aronson Nov 2003 B1
6691156 Drummond et al. Feb 2004 B1
6708205 Sheldon et al. Mar 2004 B2
6728378 Garib Apr 2004 B2
6732149 Kephart May 2004 B1
6772196 Kirsch Aug 2004 B1
6778941 Worrell et al. Aug 2004 B1
6779021 Bates et al. Aug 2004 B1
6816884 Summers Nov 2004 B1
6829635 Townsend Dec 2004 B1
6842773 Ralston et al. Jan 2005 B1
6851051 Bolle et al. Feb 2005 B1
6868498 Katsikas Mar 2005 B1
6876977 Marks Apr 2005 B1
6931433 Ralston et al. Aug 2005 B1
6941348 Petry et al. Sep 2005 B2
6944772 Dozortsev Sep 2005 B2
6952719 Harris Oct 2005 B1
6963928 Bagley et al. Nov 2005 B1
6965919 Woods et al. Nov 2005 B1
7003555 Jungck Feb 2006 B1
7003724 Newman Feb 2006 B2
7006993 Cheong et al. Feb 2006 B1
7016875 Steele et al. Mar 2006 B1
7016877 Steele et al. Mar 2006 B1
7032114 Moran Apr 2006 B1
7076241 Zondervan Jul 2006 B1
7103599 Buford et al. Sep 2006 B2
7117358 Bandini et al. Oct 2006 B2
7127405 Frank et al. Oct 2006 B1
7149778 Patel et al. Dec 2006 B1
7162413 Johnson et al. Jan 2007 B1
7171450 Wallace et al. Jan 2007 B2
7178099 Meyer et al. Feb 2007 B2
7206814 Kirsch Apr 2007 B2
7216233 Krueger May 2007 B1
7222157 Sutton, Jr. et al. May 2007 B1
7231428 Teague Jun 2007 B2
7249175 Donaldson Jul 2007 B1
7293063 Sobel Nov 2007 B1
7299261 Oliver Nov 2007 B1
7366919 Sobel Apr 2008 B1
7392280 Rohall et al. Jun 2008 B2
7406502 Oliver et al. Jul 2008 B1
7472163 Ben-Yoseph et al. Dec 2008 B1
7539726 Wilson et al. May 2009 B1
7562122 Oliver et al. Jul 2009 B2
7580982 Owen et al. Aug 2009 B2
7693945 Dulitz et al. Apr 2010 B1
7711669 Liu et al. May 2010 B1
7711786 Zhu May 2010 B2
7725475 Alspector et al. May 2010 B1
7725544 Alspector et al. May 2010 B2
7827190 Pandya Nov 2010 B2
7836061 Zorky Nov 2010 B1
7873996 Emigh et al. Jan 2011 B1
7877807 Shipp Jan 2011 B2
7882189 Wilson Feb 2011 B2
8010614 Musat et al. Aug 2011 B1
8046832 Goodman et al. Oct 2011 B2
8091129 Emigh et al. Jan 2012 B1
8108477 Oliver et al. Jan 2012 B2
8112486 Oliver et al. Feb 2012 B2
8180837 Lu et al. May 2012 B2
8255393 Yu et al. Aug 2012 B1
8260914 Ranjan Sep 2012 B1
8266215 Wilson Sep 2012 B2
8271603 Wilson Sep 2012 B2
8463861 Oliver et al. Jun 2013 B2
8484301 Wilson Jul 2013 B2
8515894 Yu Aug 2013 B2
8688794 Oliver Apr 2014 B2
8713014 Alspector et al. Apr 2014 B1
8918466 Yu Dec 2014 B2
8935348 Oliver Jan 2015 B2
9189516 Wilson Nov 2015 B2
9325649 Oliver Apr 2016 B2
20010002469 Bates et al. May 2001 A1
20010044803 Szutu Nov 2001 A1
20010047391 Szutu Nov 2001 A1
20020004899 Azuma Jan 2002 A1
20020046275 Crosbie et al. Apr 2002 A1
20020052920 Umeki et al. May 2002 A1
20020052921 Morkel May 2002 A1
20020087573 Reuning et al. Jul 2002 A1
20020116463 Hart Aug 2002 A1
20020143871 Meyer et al. Oct 2002 A1
20020162025 Sutton Oct 2002 A1
20020169954 Bandini et al. Nov 2002 A1
20020188689 Michael Dec 2002 A1
20020199095 Bandini Dec 2002 A1
20030009526 Bellegarda et al. Jan 2003 A1
20030023692 Moroo Jan 2003 A1
20030023736 Abkemeier Jan 2003 A1
20030041126 Buford et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030041280 Malcolm et al. Feb 2003 A1
20030046421 Horvitz Mar 2003 A1
20030069933 Lim Apr 2003 A1
20030086543 Raymond May 2003 A1
20030105827 Tan Jun 2003 A1
20030115485 Milliken Jun 2003 A1
20030120651 Bernstein et al. Jun 2003 A1
20030126136 Omoigui Jul 2003 A1
20030149726 Spear Aug 2003 A1
20030154254 Awasthi Aug 2003 A1
20030158725 Woods Aug 2003 A1
20030158903 Rohall et al. Aug 2003 A1
20030167311 Kirsch Sep 2003 A1
20030195937 Kircher, Jr. et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030204569 Andrews et al. Oct 2003 A1
20030229672 Kohn Dec 2003 A1
20030233418 Goldman Dec 2003 A1
20040003283 Goodman et al. Jan 2004 A1
20040008666 Hardjono Jan 2004 A1
20040015554 Wilson Jan 2004 A1
20040024639 Goldman Feb 2004 A1
20040030776 Cantrell et al. Feb 2004 A1
20040059786 Caughey Mar 2004 A1
20040083270 Heckerman et al. Apr 2004 A1
20040107190 Gilmour et al. Jun 2004 A1
20040117451 Chung Jun 2004 A1
20040148330 Alspector Jul 2004 A1
20040158554 Trottman Aug 2004 A1
20040162795 Dougherty et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040167964 Rounthwaite et al. Aug 2004 A1
20040167968 Wilson Aug 2004 A1
20040177120 Kirsch Sep 2004 A1
20040215963 Kaplan Oct 2004 A1
20050055410 Landsman et al. Mar 2005 A1
20050060643 Glass Mar 2005 A1
20050080855 Murray Apr 2005 A1
20050081059 Bandini Apr 2005 A1
20050125667 Sullivan et al. Jun 2005 A1
20050172213 Ralston et al. Aug 2005 A1
20050198160 Shannon et al. Sep 2005 A1
20050198289 Prakash Sep 2005 A1
20060010217 Sood Jan 2006 A1
20060031346 Zheng et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060036693 Hulten et al. Feb 2006 A1
20060095521 Patinkin May 2006 A1
20060129644 Owen Jun 2006 A1
20060168006 Shannon et al. Jul 2006 A1
20060168019 Levy Jul 2006 A1
20060235934 Wilson Oct 2006 A1
20060282888 Bandini et al. Dec 2006 A1
20070005564 Zehner Jan 2007 A1
20070124578 Paya May 2007 A1
20070143432 Klos et al. Jun 2007 A1
20080021969 Oliver et al. Jan 2008 A1
20080276318 Leung Nov 2008 A1
20080301139 Wang Dec 2008 A1
20080301281 Wang Dec 2008 A1
20090063371 Lin Mar 2009 A1
20090064323 Lin Mar 2009 A1
20090110233 Lu et al. Apr 2009 A1
20090262741 Jungck Oct 2009 A1
20100017487 Patinkin Jan 2010 A1
20100017488 Oliver et al. Jan 2010 A1
20100161537 Liu Jun 2010 A1
20100287246 Klos et al. Nov 2010 A1
20100318614 Sager Dec 2010 A1
20110184976 Wilson Jul 2011 A1
20110191423 Krasser Aug 2011 A1
20110225244 Levow Sep 2011 A1
20110265016 Koopman Oct 2011 A1
20110296524 Hines et al. Dec 2011 A1
20120131118 Oliver et al. May 2012 A1
20120131119 Oliver et al. May 2012 A1
20120166458 Laudanski Jun 2012 A1
20120215892 Wanser Aug 2012 A1
20130173562 Alspector et al. Jul 2013 A1
20130215116 Siddique Aug 2013 A1
20130275463 Wilson Oct 2013 A1
20130318108 Oliver Nov 2013 A1
20140129655 Oliver May 2014 A1
20150213131 Styler Jul 2015 A1
Foreign Referenced Citations (1)
Number Date Country
WO 2004075029 Sep 2004 WO
Non-Patent Literature Citations (70)
Entry
“Active SMTP White Paper,” ESCOM Corp. (author unknown), 2000, 11pp.
“Digital Signature,” http://www.cnet.com/Resources/Info/Glossary/Terms/digitalsignature.html last accessed Nov. 15, 2006.
“Hash Function,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash—value, last accessed Nov. 15, 2006.
“Majordomo FAQ,” Oct. 20, 2001.
Agrawal et al., “Controlling Spam Emails at the Routers,” IEEE 2005.
Anon, “Challenge Messages,” Mailblocks, http://support.mailblocks.com/tab—howto/Validation/detail—privacy—challenge.asp, Apr. 18, 2003.
Anon, “Cloudmark, Different Approaches to Spamfighting,” Whitepaper, Version 1.0, Nov. 2002.
Anon, “Correspondence Negotiation Protocol,” http://www.cs.sfu.ca/˜cameron/CNP.html, Mar. 17, 2003.
Anon, “DigiPortal Software, Creating Order from Chaos,” Support, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.digiportal.com/support/choicemail/faq.html, Jul. 2002.
Anon, “DM” Strategies Making a Living on Opt-In Email Marketing, Interactive PR & Marketing News, Feb. 19, 1999, vol. 6, Issue 4.
Anon, “Giant Company Software Announces Full Integrated AOL Support for its Popular Spam Inspector Anti-Spam Software,” GIANT Company Software, Inc., Nov. 15, 2002.
Anon, “How Challenge/Response Works,” http://about.mailblocks.com/challenge.html, Apr. 1, 2003.
Anon, “Project: Vipul's Razor: Summary,” http://sourceforge.net/projects/razor, Jan. 12, 2002.
Anon, “Tagged Message Delivery Agent (TMDA),” http://tmda.net/indext.html, Jul. 25, 2002.
Anon, “The Lifecycle of Spam,” PC Magazine, Feb. 25, 2003, pp. 74-97.
Balvanz, Jeff et al., “Spam Software Evaluation, Training, and Support: Fighting Back to Reclaim the Email Inbox,” in the Proc. of the 32nd Annual ACM SIGUCCS Conference on User Services, Baltimore, MD, pp. 385-387, 2004.
Byrne, Julian “My Spamblock,” Google Groups Thread, Jan. 19, 1997.
Cranor, Lorrie et al., “Spam!,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 41, Issue 8, pp. 74-83, Aug. 1998.
Dwork, Cynthia et al., “Pricing via Processing or Combating Junk Mail,” CRYPTO '92, Springer-Verlag LNCS 740, pp. 139-147, 1992.
Gabrilovich et al., “The Homograph Attack,” Communications of the ACM, 45 (2):128, Feb. 2002.
Georgantopoulous, Bryan “MScin Speech and Language Processing Dissertation: Automatic Summarizing Based on Sentence Extraction: A Statistical Approach,” Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh, http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/˜byron/msc.html, Apr. 21, 2001.
Gomes, Luiz et al., “Characterizing a Spam Traffic,” in the Proc. of the 4th ACM SIGCOMM Conference on Internet Measurement, Sicily, Italy, pp. 356-369, 2004.
Guilmette, Ronald F., “To Mung or Not to Mung,” Google Groups Thread, Jul. 24, 1997.
Hoffman, Paul and Crocker, Dave “Unsolicited Bulk Email: Mechanisms for Control” Internet Mail Consortium Report: UBE-SOL, IMCR-008, revised May 4, 1998.
Jung, Jaeyeon et al., “An Empirical Study of Spam Traffic and the Use of DNS Black Lists,” IMC'04, Taormina, Sicily, Italy, Oct. 25-27, 2004.
Kolathur, Satheesh and Subramanian, Subha “Spam Filter, A Collaborative Method of Eliminating Spam,” White paper, published Dec. 8, 2000 http://www.cs.uh.edu/˜kolarthur/Paper.htm.
Langberg, Mike “Spam Foe Needs Filter of Himself,” Email Thread dtd. Apr. 5, 2003.
Lie, D.H., “Sumatra: A System for Automatic Summary Generation,” http://www.carptechnologies.nl/SumatraTWLT14paper/SumatraTWLT14.html, Oct. 1999.
Mastaler, Jason “Tagged Message Delivery Agent (TMDA),” TDMA Homepage, 2003.
Maxwell, Rebecca, “Inxight Summarizer creates Document Outlines,” Jun. 17, 1999, www.itworldcanada.com.
McCullagh, Declan “In-Boxes that Fight Back,” News.com, May 19, 2003.
Prakash, Vipul Ved “Razor-agents 2.22,” http://razor.sourceforge.net, Aug. 18, 2000.
Skoll, David F., “How to Make Sure a Human is Sending You Mail,” Google Groups Thread, Nov. 17, 1996.
Spamarrest, The Product, How it Works, http://spamarrest.com/products/howitworks.jsp, Aug. 2, 2002.
SpamAssassin, “Welcome to SpamAssassin,” http://spamassassin.org, Jan. 23, 2003.
Templeton, Brad “Viking-12 Junk E-Mail Blocker,” (believed to have last been updated Jul. 15, 2003).
Von Ahn, Luis et al., “Telling Humans and Computers Apart (Automatically) or How Lazy Cryptographers do Al,” Communications to the ACM, Feb. 2004.
Weinstein, Lauren “Spam Wars,” Communications of the ACM, vol. 46, Issue 8, p. 136, Aug. 2003.
PCT Application No. PCT/US04/05172 International Search Report and Written Opinion mailed Dec. 7, 2004, 9 pages.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/903,413 Office Action dated Oct. 27, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/360,971 Office Action dated Aug. 13, 2013.
U.S. Appl. No. 14/152,812 Office Action dated May 8, 2015.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Final Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Final Office Action dated Jul. 6, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Office Action dated Jan. 12, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Final Office Action dated Aug. 10, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Office Action dated Nov. 30, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Final Office Action dated Jun. 6, 2005.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/371,987 Office Action dated Sep. 30, 2004.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/616,703 Office Action dated Nov. 28, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/616,703 Final Office Action dated Sep. 19, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 10/616,703 Office Action dated Apr. 9, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/455,037 Final Office Action dated Feb. 15, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/455,037 Office Action dated Oct. 28, 2011.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/455,037 Final Office Action dated Jan. 18, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/455,037 Office Action dated Jul. 17, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/455,037 Final Office Action dated Feb. 13, 2007.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/455,037 Office Action dated Oct. 20, 2006.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/926,819 Final Office Action dated Mar. 5, 2010.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/926,819 Office Action dated Jun. 25, 2009.
U.S. Appl. No. 11/927,497 Office Action dated Sep. 4, 2008.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/502,189 Final Office Action dated Aug. 2, 2011.
U.S. Appl. No. 12/502,189 Office Action dated Aug. 17, 2010.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/015,526 Office Action dated Aug. 10, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/361,659 Final Office Action dated Jul. 17, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/361,659 Office Action dated Mar. 16, 2012.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/912,055 Final Office Action dated Mar. 3, 2015.
U.S. Appl. No. 13/912,055 Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2014.
U.S. Appl. No. 15/074,788, Jonathan J. Oliver, Signature Generation Using Message Summaries, filed Mar. 18, 2016.
Related Publications (1)
Number Date Country
20160078124 A1 Mar 2016 US
Continuations (4)
Number Date Country
Parent 13912055 Jun 2013 US
Child 14938573 US
Parent 13015526 Jan 2011 US
Child 13912055 US
Parent 11926819 Oct 2007 US
Child 13015526 US
Parent 10371987 Feb 2003 US
Child 11926819 US