U.S. patent application number 10/784369 was filed with the patent office on 2004-08-26 for system and method for discouraging communications considered undesirable by recipients.
Invention is credited to Raymond, Philip R..
Application Number | 20040165707 10/784369 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 26818018 |
Filed Date | 2004-08-26 |
United States Patent
Application |
20040165707 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
Raymond, Philip R. |
August 26, 2004 |
System and method for discouraging communications considered
undesirable by recipients
Abstract
A system and methods for discouraging unwanted electronic
communications requires a communication sender who is not
recognized by the intended recipient, or who is not approved by the
intended recipient, to a post a bond to accompany the
communication. Adaptable to eliminating spam, unwanted faxes,
unwanted telephone calls, etc., the system and method forces the
money associated with the bond to be forfeited if the communication
is rejected or deemed undesirable by the recipient. To prevent
financially motivated abuse on the part of recipients, the
preferred embodiment forfeits the bond money in favor of a third
party such as a charity or governmental entity, to which the
recipient has no legal obligation. A further safeguard against
recipient abuse gives senders a predetermined number of unsolicited
communications to send to system subscribers, after which bonds are
required to send unapproved communications.
Inventors: |
Raymond, Philip R.;
(Marlborough, MA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
Gregory P. Gadson, Esq.
19375 Amber Way
Noblesville
IN
46060
US
|
Family ID: |
26818018 |
Appl. No.: |
10/784369 |
Filed: |
February 23, 2004 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
10784369 |
Feb 23, 2004 |
|
|
|
10120058 |
Apr 10, 2002 |
|
|
|
6697462 |
|
|
|
|
60347857 |
Nov 7, 2001 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
379/93.02 ;
379/100.08; 379/114.01; 379/93.24 |
Current CPC
Class: |
H04L 12/14 20130101;
H04M 7/0054 20130101; H04M 7/128 20130101; H04L 51/12 20130101;
H04N 1/32021 20130101; H04N 1/32005 20130101; H04N 2201/0098
20130101; H04N 1/3201 20130101; G06Q 10/107 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
379/093.02 ;
379/114.01; 379/100.08; 379/093.24 |
International
Class: |
H04M 011/00; H04M
015/00 |
Claims
What is claimed is:
1. A method of regulating electronic communications, said method
comprising the steps of: a) receiving a communication from a sender
for a designated recipient; b) comparing sender identity indicia
attached to said communication with stored sender identity indicia
in a database under the control of said recipient; c) presenting
said communication to said recipient for acceptance or rejection,
when said sender identity indicia is determined to be acceptable in
step b); d) sending a return message to said sender indicating that
a bond must be posted when said sender identity indicia is not
determined to be acceptable in step b), and that money associated
with said bond shall be forfeited if said communication is
presented to said recipient and said recipient rejects said
communication; e) dissolving said bond when said recipient accepts
said communication; and f) causing the money associated with said
bond to be forfeited when said recipient rejects said
communication.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein forfeiture of the money
associated with said bond is in favor of a third party designated
by said recipient, said third party being independent of said
recipient.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein communication is via a wide area
network (WAN).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the amount of money required for
said bond is established by the intended recipient of the
communication.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: for each
sender encountered by the system administering said method,
counting the number of communications by the sender which are
rejected by a recipient; and disabling step f) when the number of
rejected communications by system users has not exceeded a
predetermined number.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: for each
sender encountered by the system administering said method,
counting the number of communications by the sender which are
rejected by a recipient; and increasing the amount of money
required for said bond when the number of rejected communications
by system users has exceeded a predetermined number.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein said communication is an
electronic mail message.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein said communication is a facsimile
transmission.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein said communication is a "pop-up"
message encountered while said recipient is actively coupled to a
wide area network.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein said communication is a third
party content message encountered while said recipient is actively
coupled to a wide area network.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein said communication is a
telephone call.
12. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
providing the sender of a communication with the ability to
indicate whether the communication is accompanied by a bond when
the communication is initially sent; and disabling step d) when the
initially sent communication is accompanied by a bond.
13. The method of claim 1, further comprising the step of:
disabling steps d) through f) when the sender is a subscriber to a
system administering said method.
14. The method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of:
enabling a recipient to declare himself/herself willing to receive
commercial communications from senders approved by the system
administering said method; disabling steps d) through f) for
approved senders; and paying a recipient who agrees to receive said
commercial communications a fee from said sender.
15. The method of claim 1, wherein steps d) through f) are carried
out via an Internet Service Provider (ISP) servicing said
recipient.
16. The method of claim 1, wherein steps d) through f) are carried
out via a clearinghouse entity.
17. A system for regulating electronic communications, said system
comprising: at least a communication server adapted to receive a
communication from a sender for a designated recipient; a sender
identity indicia database adapted to store sender identity indicia
under the direction of the recipient corresponding to acceptable or
unacceptable sender identities; a comparator adapted to compare
sender identity indicia attached to said communication with stored
sender identity indicia database; said communication server being
further adapted to present said communication to said recipient for
acceptance or rejection, when said sender identity indicia is
determined to be acceptable according to the output and
interpretation of said comparator; said communication server being
further adapted to send a return message to said sender indicating
that a bond must be posted when said sender identity indicia is not
determined to be acceptable, and that money associated with said
bond shall be forfeited if said communication is presented to said
recipient and said recipient rejects said communication; and a bond
establisher adapted to enable communication senders to establish
bonds; wherein said system is adapted to dissolve said bond when
said recipient accepts said communication, and said system is
adapted to cause the money associated with said bond to be
forfeited when said recipient rejects said communication.
18. The system of claim 17, wherein forfeiture of the money
associated with said bond is in favor of a third party designated
by said recipient, said third party being independent of said
recipient.
19. The system of claim 17, further comprising a wide area network
(WAN) adapted to facilitate communication.
20. The system of claim 17, wherein said system is adapted to
enable the amount of money required for said bond to be established
by the intended recipient of the communication.
21. The system of claim 17, wherein said bond automatically expires
after a predetermined time.
22. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication server is
further adapted to transmit a confirmation message to a recipient
who has rejected a communication, said confirmation message
confirming that the money associated with said bond has been
forfeited.
23. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication is an
electronic mail message.
24. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication is a
facsimile transmission.
25. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication is a
"pop-up" message encountered while said recipient is actively
coupled to a wide area network.
26. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication is a third
party content message encountered while said recipient is actively
coupled to a wide area network.
27. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication is a
telephone call.
28. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication server is
further adapted to provide the sender of a communication with the
ability to indicate whether the communication is accompanied by a
bond when the communication is initially sent, and said
communication server is further adapted to forego sending said
return message when the initially sent communication is accompanied
by a bond.
29. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication server is
adapted to forego sending said return message, and said system is
further adapted to forego forfeiting the money associated with said
bond when the sender is a subscriber to a system administering said
method.
30. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication server and
said bond establisher are subsumed by an Internet Service Provider
(ISP) servicing said recipient.
31. The system of claim 17, wherein said communication server and
said bond establisher are subsumed by a clearinghouse entity.
32. A method of regulating electronic communications, said method
comprising the steps of: receiving a communication from a sender
for a designated recipient; and if said communication is
accompanied by a posted bond, the amount of which is specified by
said recipient, the recipient providing a guarantee that said
communication will be accepted.
33. The method of claim 32, wherein said guarantee is further
defined by at least a minimum communication time specified by said
recipient.
34. The method of claim 32, wherein said communication comprises a
plurality of interactive e-mails between said sender and said
recipient.
35. The method of claim 32, wherein said communication comprises at
least one telephone call between said sender and said recipient.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No.
10/120,058, filed Apr. 10, 2002 for "System and Method for
Discouraging Unwanted Electronically Based Communications," which
is based on and claims the priority of U.S. Provisional Patent
Application Serial No. 60/347,857, filed Nov. 7, 2001 for "System
and Method for Discouraging Unwanted Electronically Based
Communications."
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
[0002] 1. Field of the Invention
[0003] The present invention generally relates to methods for
reducing unwanted electronic communications, with a non-limited
emphasis upon "spam" and other forms of unwanted electronic
mail.
[0004] 2. Background
[0005] As is well known, electronic mail ("e-mail") messages can be
sent and received from almost any location using a computer or
other device with a MODEM and an available telephone line. At the
time of the initial filing of the application upon which this
Letters Patent is based, well over 300 million hourly e-mail
messages, and approximately 3 trillion yearly e-mail messages, were
being sent to computer users.
[0006] To the chagrin of many e-mail users, much of the messages
and attached files they receive can be classified as "spam." In
general, spam is unsolicited, mass-transmitted e-mail analogous to
"junk" mail received by postal customers. Unlike postal junk
mailers, "spammers" have very little increased cost associated with
sending mass e-mailings, and are exponentially wreaking havoc.
[0007] Not only does spam overwhelm users' system resources and
commandeer their time in order to delete unwanted messages, but it
also transmits undesirable subject matter for many users. The
undesirable subject matter for some, ranges from unwanted
commercial solicitation, to chain mailings, to sexually explicit
material.
[0008] One simplistic prior art approach to solving the problem of
eliminating unwanted e-mail messages is for the user to compile a
list of acceptable senders' e-mail addresses, or a list of banned
senders' addresses, or both. Software on the user's computer system
would then reject all incoming e-mail which is from a banned
source, or which is from an unauthorized source. This approach has
several problems; among them, rejecting perfectly legitimate
e-mails the user would indeed have an interest in, simply because
the sender's address does not appear on the list of authorized
senders. This approach also places an untenable burden upon the
user to constantly update the aforementioned list in order to avoid
improper rejections. This approach also lacks the ability to
recognize desirable senders whose e-mail addresses have changed
unbeknownst to the recipient.
[0009] Another approach to eliminating unwanted e-mail messages is
to install a filter on the user's system, or at the level of the
Internet Service Provider (ISP) administering the user's e-mail
account. Prior to presenting an e-mail message to the user, the
filter peruses the e-mail for words or character strings that have
been identified as tending to be associated with an undesirable
communication. Regardless of how sophisticated these filters are,
they often reject perfectly legitimate e-mail messages for failure
to place the forbidden words in context. These filters also fail to
reject undesirable messages that are cleverly worded to appear
innocuous to filters, but yet contain subject matter the user would
not otherwise like to receive.
[0010] In yet another approach, the user employs a third party to
administer a filtering service for screening all e-mail messages.
All e-mail sent to a service subscriber's address is routed to a
server or other instrumentality under the control of the filter
service operator. The filtering service combines software and human
screeners to review all messages, and pass to the subscriber, only
those messages meeting the subscriber's positive and/or negative
criteria. This approach adds extra cost to e-mail service, and
while it may eliminate more of the cleverly worded but yet
undesirable messages, nonetheless suffers from the same software
limitations as previously mentioned approaches. It is also prone to
human error. Compounding these problems is a loss of privacy on the
part of the subscriber, as well as a requirement that the
subscriber relinquish a degree of control to third parties who lack
to personal experience and information to accept those messages
which may appear forbidden on the surface, but might actually be
desirable for receipt nonetheless.
[0011] A newer approach advocated, but yet to be successfully
implemented commercially, is to charge an e-mail sender a fee for
every message he or she sends. This is designed to make the price
of spamming cost-prohibitive, while not leading to raised costs for
typical e-mail users. While this can be controlled by ISPs who
service the spammers, it will not discourage spammers whose ISPs do
not charge for individual mail. Further, this moves away from the
concept of e-mail for the masses which is not encumbered by a fee
or taxing event for every message. It also requires those who send
a large number of legitimate, desirable e-mails that are not seen
as a nuisance, to pay unacceptably high up-front fees.
[0012] A further proposed refinement of the latter approach
requires e-mail users to install special software that
automatically assesses a fee (payable to the user) for each e-mail
message from an unrecognized sender. The fee can be collected via
the Internet Service Provider (ISP) where the sender and recipient
have a common ISP. If not, the multiple ISPs involved can cooperate
to charge the fee. If the user determines that the e-mail was
desirable, he or she can cancel the charge. The fee is a matter of
design choice, and can be, for example, in the $1 to $3 range.
[0013] While the latter approach may indeed serve as a deterrent to
sending spam, it includes facets that make it impractical.
Automatically and randomly charging senders having addresses
unknown to the recipient, without their knowledge that they could
be charged does not permit e-mail senders to adequately plan their
costs associated with sending e-mails. Further, there is a
financial incentive for some recipients to abuse the system by not
canceling fees for legitimate e-mails, simply to collect the
fee.
[0014] It should be noted that the problems associated with e-mail
and unwanted messages are also present with other forms of
electronic communication, such as, for example, telephone calls and
facsimile transmissions. Solutions to reducing unwanted messages
and contact for these other forms of communication are also
inadequate.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[0015] In view of the aforementioned problems and deficiencies of
the prior art, the present invention provides a method of
regulating electronic communications. The method at least includes
the steps of receiving a communication from a sender for a
designated recipient, comparing sender identity indicia attached to
the communication with stored sender identity indicia in a database
under the control of the recipient, and presenting the
communication to the recipient for acceptance or rejection, when
the sender identity indicia is determined to be acceptable. The
method further at least includes the steps of sending a return
message to the sender indicating that a bond must be posted when
the sender identity indicia is not determined to be acceptable, and
that money associated with the bond shall be forfeited if the
communication is presented to the recipient and the recipient
rejects the communication, dissolving the bond when the recipient
accepts the communication, and causing the money associated with
the bond to be forfeited when the recipient rejects the
communication.
[0016] The present invention also provides a system for regulating
electronic communications. The system includes, inter alia, at
least a communication server adapted to receive a communication
from a sender for a designated recipient, a sender identity indicia
database adapted to store sender identity indicia under the
direction of the recipient corresponding to acceptable or
unacceptable sender identities, a comparator adapted to compare
sender identity indicia attached to the communication with stored
sender identity indicia database, and a bond establisher adapted to
enable communication senders to establish bonds. The communication
server is further adapted to present the communication to the
recipient for acceptance or rejection, when the sender identity
indicia is determined to be acceptable according to the output and
interpretation of the comparator, and send a return message to the
sender indicating that a bond must be posted when the sender
identity indicia is not determined to be acceptable, and that money
associated with the bond shall be forfeited if the communication is
presented to the recipient and the recipient rejects the
communication. The system is also adapted to dissolve the bond when
the recipient accepts the communication, and cause the money
associated with the bond to be forfeited when the recipient rejects
the communication.
[0017] The present invention further provides a method of
regulating electronic communications that at least includes the
steps of receiving a communication from a sender for a designated
recipient, and if the communication is accompanied by a posted
bond, the amount of which is specified by the recipient, the
recipient providing a guarantee that the communication will be
accepted.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES
[0018] Features and advantages of the present invention will become
apparent to those skilled in the art from the description below,
with reference to the following drawing figures, in which:
[0019] FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of the present-inventive
communication system for regulating communications between
communication senders and communication recipients according to the
present invention; and
[0020] FIG. 2 is a flow chart of the process of generating and
sending electronic communications according to the present
invention.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
[0021] General System
[0022] A general schematic block diagram of the present-inventive
communication regulation system 100 is shown in FIG. 1. In the
system 100, users can both send and receive a variety of electronic
communications from a variety of sources, such as from computers
(160, 170), facsimile machines (164, 174), special purpose hardware
like electronic mail (e-mail) devices, or EMDs (166, 176), and
conventional telephones (168, 178). Those skilled in the art to
which the invention pertains will appreciate that other devices and
other forms of communication can be regulated by the system without
departing from the scope of the present invention. Further examples
of these communications include "pop-up" menus and third party
content messages received while a user is logged on to the
Internet. Also, the devices can be connected to the system by both
wired and wireless means.
[0023] In the preferred embodiment, the system 100 includes a
Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) 110 for processing
telephonic communications emanating from within and without the
network. The details of a functioning PSTN are well known to those
skilled in the art, and will thus not be repeated here, except to
symbolically show telephonic switches 112 and 114. The present
invention functions whether the communication is contained entirely
within the PSTN, or whether there is extra-network handling. In an
alternate embodiment, the connection to the PSTN may be by-passed
entirely in favor of a cable modem connection, for communication
between the ISP and the desktop computer.
[0024] Such extra-network handling includes communications which
are transmitted and received through a wide area network (WAN) 120
such as the Internet. Connection to the Internet 120 is by way of
one or more Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as the ones 130
and 140.
[0025] A third party billing agent 150 handles financial
transactions relating to credit cards and the like.
[0026] Users subscribing to the present inventive system and
communication regulation service will have program software 172
installed in their computers for receipt of computer
communications. Where the user receives a communication without a
computer, the program software can be installed as part of the
switches 1 12, 114, and/or as part of an Intelligent Network.
[0027] The methods associated with the present invention, as
described below, can be carried out by one or more communication
servers under the control of the system ISPs, with each ISP having
a separate server, or one or more centralized system servers.
[0028] General Method
[0029] At its core, the present invention requires a communication
sender who is not recognized or authorized by a communication
recipient to establish a bond (e.g., liability bond) or other legal
vehicle to protect the recipient against undesirable
communications. Those having legal training will appreciate that
arrangements other than bonds will suffice, provided the sender
pledges money which will be forfeited upon the occurrence of a
contingency. The contingency in this case is the communication
recipient's rejection of the communication, whether a knee-jerk
rejection, or whether the rejection occurs after the recipient
considers the communication content.
[0030] With the above-mentioned approach, those indiscriminately
sending large numbers of spam or other communications must weigh
the benefits of sending communications to system subscribers who
require them to post bonds, and thus risk forfeiting money if the
communication is rejected. The amount of money associated with the
bond can be predetermined by the system (for example, two dollars
for each communication), or set by the recipient in an alternate
embodiment.
[0031] The algorithm 200 in FIG. 2 generally describes the basic
steps employed by the present-inventive system for discouraging
unwanted electronic communications.
[0032] The algorithm begins at Step 202 when a person or entity
("Party A") attempts to send an electronic communication to another
person or entity ("Party B") who is a subscriber to a
present-inventive system. If Party A is also a subscriber to the
system, and does not have a record of abuse (i.e., has not
habitually sent unwelcome or undesirable communications to other
system subscribers), the algorithm advances from Step 204 to Stem
216, where the communication is presented to Party B for acceptance
or rejection.
[0033] If Party A is not both a subscriber and one with a
non-abusive record, the algorithm moves from Step 204 to Step 206.
Either locally or at the communication server, Party A's address is
compared with stored addresses in Party B's database. Party B's
stored address list can include only those addresses indicated by
Party B that should be allowed to communicate with Party B without
posting a bond. Party B may also instruct the database that certain
identified senders (via the senders' address) should not be able to
send communications even if they post a bond. Party B can then
periodically update the database to include new banned senders, or
expand or revise the list of acceptable senders' addresses. In an
alternate embodiment, Party B can have his or her database
automatically updated by the system administrator. In that case,
the system administrator adds to all subscriber databases, those
senders (to be banned from bonded communication) who qualify as
"spammers."
[0034] If Party A's address is a permissible one, the algorithm
bypasses Steps 208 through 214, and presents the communication to
Party A in Step 216. If Party A's address is not a permissible one,
the preferred embodiment determines whether Party A has exceeded
its quota for sending communications which have been rejected by
subscriber recipients. The inclusion of a quota allows those who
are truly not spammers (or other indiscriminate communicators like
telemarketers or "nuisance faxers"--those who tie up facsimile
machines with unsolicited facsimile transmissions) to send a
certain amount of legitimate communications to people who do not
happen to recognize them by their address, without having to post a
bond. The exact quota is a matter of design choice, but could be,
for example, 50 rejected communications per month. The ISPs can
even charge different access fees for each subscriber depending on
the number of non-bonded communications the subscriber can have in
each month or other time period. In an alternative approach,
exceeding the quota changes the bond money needed from a specified
lower amount to a specified higher amount.
[0035] If Party A has not exceeded its quota, a bond will not be
required. However, if the quota has been exceeded, a return message
is sent to Party A (in Step 210) indicating that the communication
will not be sent to Party B unless Party A posts a specified bond.
In Step 212, Party A posts the requisite bond, vel non, through its
ISP by account, using a credit card and interfacing with the third
party billing agent 150 mentioned supra, or other means.
[0036] If Party A has posted the requisite bond, the communication
is presented to Party B for acceptance or rejection (Steps 214 and
216). If Party A has not posted the requisite bond, the
communication is automatically rejected and the algorithm returns
to Step 210.
[0037] Once the bond has been posted, and the communication has
been sent, the algorithm determines whether Party B has accepted or
rejected the communication. If Party B accepts the communication
(or indicates that it is desirable once the communication is
reviewed) the bond is extinguished, and the money is returned or
credited back to Party A's account (Steps 218 and 220). If Party B
rejects the communication (or indicates that it is undesirable
after it is reviewed) the bond money is forfeited in favor of a
third party, and then an explanatory message is sent to Party A
(Steps 218, 222 and 224). After Step 224, the algorithm stops in
Step 226. To prevent financially motivated abuse on the part of
recipients, the preferred embodiment forfeits the bond money in
favor of a third party such as a charity or governmental entity
(such as the Internal Revenue Service), to which the recipient has
no legal obligation. The subscriber has the option of designating
which third party or third parties will receive forfeited bond
money.
[0038] It should be noted that whether used in the specification or
the claims of this Letters Patent, "acceptance" or "rejection" of a
communication by a recipient is at the recipient's unfettered
discretion. That is, the recipient may choose to reject
communications that comport with or contravene articulated
criteria. Or, a recipient may change the criteria without warning,
without articulated justification, and on the fly, even rejecting
communications of the type previously accepted. Or, a recipient
need not articulate criteria at all. Additionally, "acceptance" or
"rejection" of a received communication need not be in real time,
but may occur after some delay in receipt to allow the recipient to
ponder whether a communication is desirable, acceptable, etc. In
fact, an alternative system may be implemented so that a recipient
may reject communications that were received in a previous
communication sessions.
[0039] Some Specific Variations
[0040] Variations and modifications of the present invention are
possible, given the above description. However, all variations and
modifications which are obvious to those skilled in the art to
which the present invention pertains are considered to be within
the scope of the protection granted by this Letters Patent.
[0041] One variation on the methods described above allows
communication senders to purchase a guarantee that their
communications will be reviewed and genuinely considered by highly
sought after individuals and entities. For example, if an
individual wishes to pitch a business proposition to a busy
corporate chieftain, celebrity or governmental official, the
individual can post a specified bond (e.g., fifty thousand dollars)
for a specified amount of communication time (e.g., twenty minutes)
with the targeted person. Using this approach, the busy,
perpetually wooed individual can ensure that only the most
serious-minded, determined individuals actually attempt to reach
them. The money pledged under this approach is then forfeited upon
the targeted individual or entity actually making, reviewing and
considering the communication, regardless of whether or not the
communication is later determined to be desirable. In order to
avoid the appearance that the highly sought after individual is
merely trying to generate self-income, the money pledged can be
paid to a charity or other third party independent of the
individual. Pledges made to governmental officials must obviously
meet ethical guidelines, and avoid the appearance of "influence
peddling."
[0042] Another variation of the present invention allows
subscribers to indicate that they will receive all communications
from specified commercial senders for a period of time, regardless
of the nature of the communications. In exchange for the subscriber
giving up his or her privilege to receive nuisance-free
communications under the system, the subscriber might be paid a
flat fee or periodic fees.
[0043] It is also possible to implement the present-inventive
system using a clearinghouse-like entity/instrumentality, rather
than placing all of the control under the ISPs. The clearinghouse
can also serve as a dispute resolution entity, where subscribers
can lodge complaints against other subscribers that may be abusing
a "non-spam generator" presumption. It may also be used by
subscribers to complain that other subscribers are simply rejecting
legitimate communications to generate income, even though the
income from the forfeited bonds may not go directly to the
communication recipients.
* * * * *