U.S. patent application number 10/447593 was filed with the patent office on 2008-05-22 for systems and methods for automatically updating electronic mail access lists.
This patent application is currently assigned to Mindshare Design, Inc.. Invention is credited to Steven Smith.
Application Number | 20080120378 10/447593 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 33451275 |
Filed Date | 2008-05-22 |
United States Patent
Application |
20080120378 |
Kind Code |
A2 |
Smith; Steven |
May 22, 2008 |
Systems and Methods for Automatically Updating Electronic Mail
Access Lists
Abstract
A system and method for permitting a sender to provide
electronic mail (email) to a recipient, said method comprising
providing a recipient email address to the sender; requesting of
the recipient that the sender be allowed to send email to the
recipient; determining whether the request is acceptable based on
at least one of: 1) a sender identity verification method; 2) user
input; and 3) third party information; adding the sender to an
email access list if the request is acceptable; and wherein the
email access is used to determine whether or not email from the
sender is permitted to reach the recipient.
Inventors: |
Smith; Steven; (San
Francisco, CA) |
Correspondence
Address: |
FLIESLER MEYER LLP
650 CALIFORNIA STREET
14TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO
CA
94108
UNITED STATES
415-362-3800
415-362-2928
OFFICEACTIONS@FDML.COM
|
Assignee: |
Mindshare Design, Inc.
44 Montgomery Street Suite 1600
San Francisco
CA
94101
|
Prior
Publication: |
|
Document Identifier |
Publication Date |
|
US 20040243678 A1 |
December 2, 2004 |
|
|
Family ID: |
33451275 |
Appl. No.: |
10/447593 |
Filed: |
May 29, 2003 |
Current U.S.
Class: |
709/206 |
Current CPC
Class: |
H04L 51/12 20130101 |
Class at
Publication: |
709/206 |
International
Class: |
G06F 15/16 20060101
G06F015/16 |
Claims
1. A method for permitting a sender to provide electronic mail
(email) to a recipient, said method comprising: providing a
recipient email address to the sender; requesting of the recipient
that the sender be allowed to send email to the recipient;
determining whether the request is acceptable based on at least one
of: 1) a sender identity verification method; 2) user input; and 3)
third party information; adding the sender to an email access list
if the request is acceptable; and wherein the email access is used
to determine whether or not email from the sender is permitted to
reach the recipient.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: providing
confirmation of the determination to the sender if the sender
requested such confirmation.
3. The method of claim 1 wherein: the step of providing the
recipient email address to the sender is a result of a Web-based
interaction between the recipient and the sender.
4. The method of claim 1 wherein: the sender identity verification
method can be used by the recipient to verify that an email message
is from the sender.
5. The method of claim 1 wherein: the sender identity verification
method is one of: 1) an email header "From" address; 2) a password;
3) an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and 4) a digital
signature.
6. The method of claim 1 wherein: the request is provided to a Web
browser.
7. The method of claim 6 wherein: the Web browser can identify the
request based on a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME)
type.
8. The method of claim 1 wherein: the step of determining whether a
request is acceptable utilizes at least one rule, wherein the at
least one rule is evaluated against the request.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising: prompting a user for
a decision regarding whether or not to accept the request.
10. A method for permitting a sender to provide electronic mail
(email) to a recipient, said method comprising: providing a
recipient email address to the sender; providing a petition to the
recipient, wherein the petition includes a sender identity
verification method; determining whether the petition is acceptable
based on at least one of: 1) the sender identity verification
method; 2) user input; and 3) third party information; and adding
the sender to an email access list if the petition is acceptable;
and wherein the email access list is used to determine whether or
not email from the sender is permitted to reach the recipient.
11. The method of claim 10, further comprising: providing
confirmation of the determination to the sender if the sender
requested such confirmation.
12. The method of claim 10 wherein: the step of providing the
recipient email address to the sender is a result of a Web-based
interaction between the recipient and the sender.
13. The method of claim 10 wherein: the sender identity
verification method can be used by the recipient to verify that an
email message is from the sender.
14. The method of claim 10 wherein: the identity verification
method is one of: 1) an email header "From" address; 2) a password;
3) an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and 4) a digital
signature.
15. The method of claim 10 wherein: the petition is provided to a
Web browser.
16. The method of claim 15 wherein: the Web browser can identify
the petition based on a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME)
type.
17. The method of claim 10 wherein: the step of determining whether
a petition is acceptable utilizes at least one rule, wherein the at
least one rule is evaluated against the petition.
18. The method of claim 10, further comprising: prompting a user
for a decision regarding whether or not to accept the petition.
19. A method for adding a sender to an electronic mail (email)
access list for a recipient, said method comprising: providing a
recipient identifier to the sender; providing a petition to the
recipient; determining whether to add the sender to the access list
based on at least one of: 1) user input; 2) the petition; and 3)
third party information; and adding the sender to the access list
if it was so determined.
20. The method of claim 19, further comprising: providing
confirmation of the determination to the sender if the sender
requested such.
21. The method of claim 19 wherein: the recipient identifier is an
email address of the recipient.
22. The method of claim 19 wherein: the petition includes a sender
identity verification method.
23. The method of claim 20 wherein: the identification method is
one of: 1) an email header "From" address; 2) a password; 3) an
Internet Protocol (IP) address; and 4) a digital signature.
24. The method of claim 19 wherein: the petition is provided to a
Web browser.
25. The method of claim 24 wherein: the Web browser can identify
the petition based on a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME)
type.
26. The method of claim 19 wherein: the step of providing the
identifier to the sender is a result of a Web-based interaction
between the recipient and the sender.
27. The method of claim 19 wherein: the step of determining whether
to add the sender to the access list utilizes at least one rule,
wherein the at least one rule is evaluated against the
petition.
28. The method of claim 19, further comprising: prompting a user
for a decision regarding whether or not to add the sender to the
access list.
29. A method for accepting a communication from a sender,
comprising: determining if the communication includes an acceptable
method to verify that an electronic mail (email) message is from
the sender; determining if the sender is already on an email access
list; determining whether to place the sender on the access list
based on at least one of: 1) user input; 2) a sender identity
verification method included in the communication; and 3) third
party information; and adding the sender to the access list if it
was so determined.
30. The method of claim 29, further comprising: providing
confirmation to the sender of the determination of whether to place
the sender on the email access list if the communication indicated
such confirmation was required.
31. The method of claim 29, further comprising: prompting a user
for a decision regarding whether to add the sender to the access
list, wherein the prompting can be based on user preferences.
32. The method of claim 29, wherein: the step of determining
whether to place the sender on the access list is based on the
evaluation of at least one rule.
33. The method of claim 32 wherein: the at least one rule can be
specified in a natural language.
34. The method of claim 29 wherein: the step of determining whether
the communication includes an acceptable identity verification
method is based on evaluation of at least one rule.
35. The method of claim 29 wherein: the third party information
includes whether or not the sender is trusted.
36. A system comprising: means for providing a recipient email
address to the sender; means for requesting of the recipient that
the sender be allowed to send email to the recipient; means for
determining whether the request is acceptable based on at least one
of: 1) a sender identity verification method; 2) user input; and 3)
third party information; and means for adding the sender to an
email access list if the request is acceptable; and wherein the
email access is used to determine whether or not email from the
sender is permitted to reach the recipient.
37. A system for adding a sender to an electronic mail (email)
access list for a recipient, said system comprising: the recipient
including: a petition processor to accept a petition and maintain
an access list based on the petition; a browser to accept the
petition from the sender and automatically provide the petition to
the petition processor; and wherein the access list determines if
the sender is permitted to provide email to the recipient; the
sender including: a server; and a petition generator coupled to the
server, the petition generator to produce a petition.
38. The system of claim 37 wherein: the petition processor can
provide a confirmation to the sender.
39. The system of claim 37 wherein: the petition processor executes
on a first computing device; the access list is maintained on a
second computing device; and wherein the first computing device and
the second computing device are not the same.
40. The system of claim 37 wherein: the access list is accessible
to the petition processor through a remote mail provider that is
distinct from the recipient.
41. The system of claim 37 wherein: the petition includes a sender
identity verification method that can be used by the recipient to
verify that an email message is from the sender.
42. The system of claim 41 wherein: the sender identification
method is one of: 1) an email header "From" address; 2) a password;
3) an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and 4) a digital
signature.
43. The system of claim 37 wherein: the browser can identify the
petition based on a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME)
type.
44. The system of claim 37 wherein: the petition processor
determines whether or not to accept a petition and add the sender
to the email access list of the recipient.
45. The system of claim 44 wherein: such determination is based on
at least one of: 1) input from a user; 2) a sender identity
verification method included in the petition; and 3) third party
information.
46. The system of claim 37 wherein: the server provides the
petition to the browser.
47. A system for adding a sender to an electronic mail (email)
access list for a mail provider wherein the mail provider is
accessed by a recipient, said system comprising: the recipient
including: a browser to accept a petition from the sender; the mail
provider including: a petition processor to accept the petition and
maintain an access list based on the petition; and wherein the
access list determines if the sender is permitted to provide email
to the recipient; the sender including: a server; and a petition
generator, wherein the petition generator can produce a
petition.
48. The system of claim 47, further comprising: an email proxy
coupled to the browser, the proxy to accept the petition from the
browser and provide the petition to the mail provider;
49. The system of claim 47 wherein: the petition processor can
provide a confirmation to the sender.
50. The system of claim 47 wherein: the petition processor executes
on a first computing device; the access list is maintained on a
second computing device; and wherein the first computing device and
the second computing device are not the same.
51. The system of claim 47 wherein: the petition includes a sender
identity verification method that can be used by the recipient to
verify that an email message is from the sender.
52. The system of claim 51 wherein: the sender identification
method is one of: 1) an email header "From" address; 2) a password;
3) an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and 4) a digital
signature.
53. The system of claim 47 wherein: the browser can identify the
petition based on a Multipurpose Internet Mail Extension (MIME)
type.
54. The system of claim 47 wherein: the petition processor
determines whether or not to accept a petition and add the sender
to the email access list.
55. The system of claim 54 wherein: such determination is based on
at least one of: 1) input from a user; 2) a sender identity
verification method included in the petition; and 3) third party
information.
56. The system of claim 47 wherein: the server provides the
petition to the browser.
57. A memory for storing data for access by an application program
being executed on a computing device, comprising: an email
recipient identifier stored in the memory; an email sender
identifier stored in the memory; an email sender identification
method stored in the memory; and wherein the sender identification
method can be used to verify that email is from the sender.
58. The memory of claim 57, further comprising: at least one
additional sender identification method stored in the memory.
59. The memory of claim 57 wherein: the recipient identifier is an
electronic mail (email) address.
60. The memory of claim 57 wherein: the sender identification
method is one of: 1) an email header "From" address; 2) a password;
3) an Internet Protocol (IP) address; and 4) a digital
signature.
61. A machine readable medium having instructions stored thereon
that when executed by a processor cause a system to: provide a
recipient electronic mail (email) address to the sender; request of
the recipient that the sender be allowed to send email to the
recipient; determine whether the request is acceptable based on at
least one of: 1) a sender identity verification method; 2) user
input; and 3) third party information; and add the sender to an
email access list if the request is acceptable; and wherein the
email access is used to determine whether or not email from the
sender is permitted to reach the recipient.
62. A computer data signal embodied in a transmission medium,
comprising: a code segment including instructions to provide a
recipient electronic mail (email) address to a sender; a code
segment including instructions to provide a petition to the
recipient, wherein the petition includes a sender identification
method, wherein the identification method can be used by the
recipient to verify that an email message is from the sender; a
code segment including instructions to determine if the petition is
acceptable based on at least one of: 1) sender credentials; 2) user
input; and 3) third party information; a code segment including
instructions to add the sender to an email access list if the
petition is acceptable; and wherein the email access is used to
determine whether or not email from the sender is permitted to
reach the recipient.
63. A method for generating a request that can be used to determine
if a sender should be added to a recipient email access list:
including at least one sender identification method in the request,
wherein the identification method is at least one of: 1) an email
header "From" address; 2) a password; 3) an Internet Protocol (IP)
address; and 4) a digital signature. including a sender name in the
request; including a recipient name in the request; providing the
request to a processing that will make a determination of whether
the sender should be added to the email access list.
Description
[0001] This application is related to the following co-pending
applications which are hereby incorporated by reference in their
entirety: SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATING ELECTRONIC
MAIL ACCESS LISTS, U.S. application Ser. No. 10/619,726, Inventors:
Steven J. Smith et al., filed on Jul. 15, 2003. (Attorney's Docket
No. MNDSH-1004US0); SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATICALLY UPDATING
ELECTRONIC MAIL ACCESS LISTS, U.S. application Ser. No. 10/721,044,
Inventors: Steven J. Smith et al., filed on Nov. 21, 2003.
(Attorney's Docket No. MNDSH-1006US0).
COPYRIGHT NOTICE
[0002] A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains
material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright
owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of
the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the
Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise
reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE
[0003] The present disclosure relates to systems and methods for
automatically updating electronic mail access lists.
BACKGROUND
[0004] Electronic mail (email) addresses are commonly provided by
customers when interacting with a company's website. For example,
customers often use their email address to serve as their login
name, to receive an electronic receipt of a purchase, shipping
updates, promotional materials and newsletter subscriptions. As is
often the case, however, a customer's email address can fall into
the hands of third party organizations that use it to deliver
unsolicited email, or "spam".
[0005] Internet service providers (ISPs), email service providers
(ESPs), and email software companies are employing various
strategies to restrict and/or filter incoming email with the aim of
reducing the amount of spam received by recipients. A side effect
of such strategies is that legitimate email is often discarded,
blocked or incorrectly deposited in "bulk mail" folders. As such,
some solutions which block and/or filter email enable recipients to
specify specific email senders that are allowed to bypass these
protections. Such lists of explicitly enabled senders are often
called "whitelists". Likewise, it is common to allow recipients to
specify "blacklists"--lists of individual senders prohibited from
sending email to the recipient. Email coming from blacklisted
senders is automatically blocked, filtered, or restricted
accordingly.
[0006] Manually maintaining whitelists and blacklists can represent
a significant inconvenience on the recipient's part. Some systems
require the recipient to separately open an application which
manages their access lists and manually specify the sender's email
address. Another approach requires that the recipient open the
application which manages his or her access list and generate a
special, unique tracking email address which circumvents the normal
challenge/response mechanism. Some so-called "challenge/response"
solutions put the burden of maintaining a recipient's whitelist on
the senders themselves, by requiring previously unknown senders to
authenticate themselves by responding to a "challenge" question
designed to be only practically answerable by a human sender. Upon
correctly answering the "challenge" question, the sender is deemed
to be legitimate (by virtue of being a human sender rather than an
automated system), and is added to the recipient's whitelist.
However, this process will unwittingly filter out legitimate email
that happens to have been sent by a mail program rather than by a
person. From either the recipient's or the sender's perspective, a
more convenient approach to managing email access lists is
desired.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0007] FIG. 1 is a system diagram illustrating one embodiment.
[0008] FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating petition generation in
one embodiment.
[0009] FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating petition processing in
one embodiment.
[0010] FIG. 4 is system diagram of an embodiment including a remote
mail provider.
[0011] FIG. 5 is system diagram of an embodiment including a remote
mail provider.
[0012] FIG. 6 is system diagram of an embodiment including a remote
mail provider.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0013] The invention is illustrated by way of example and not by
way of limitation in the figures of the accompanying drawings in
which like references indicate similar elements. It should be noted
that references to "an" or "one" embodiment in this disclosure are
not necessarily to the same embodiment, and such references mean at
least one.
[0014] In the following description, various aspects of the present
invention will be described. However, it will be apparent to those
skilled in the art that the present invention may be practiced with
only some or all aspects of the present invention. For purposes of
explanation, specific numbers, materials and configurations are set
forth in order to provide a thorough understanding of the present
invention. However, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art
that the present invention may be practiced without the specific
details. In other instances, well-known features are omitted or
simplified in order not to obscure the present invention.
[0015] FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of the
present invention. Although this diagram depicts objects as
functionally separate, such depiction is merely for illustrative
purposes. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the
objects portrayed in this figure can be arbitrarily combined or
divided into separate software, firmware or hardware components.
Furthermore, it will also be apparent to those skilled in the art
that such objects, regardless of how they are combined or divided,
can execute on the same computing device or can be arbitrarily
distributed among different computing devices connected by one or
more networks.
[0016] Referring to FIG. 1., sender 100 includes server 104, access
list petition generator 106 and petition information 108. By way of
a non-limiting example, petition information (and any other
information) can be stored and accessed through a number of means
including but not limited to relational databases, digital files,
random access memory, read-only memory, caches, and look-up tables.
By way of a non-limiting example, the server can be a web server
and/or application server. The server can accept HTTP (Hypertext
Transfer Protocol) requests from various recipients and can provide
Web pages 110 (e.g., files containing Hypertext Markup Language and
possibly other information) in response. The petition generator can
create an access list petition request (or "petition") and provide
it to a recipient. In one embodiment, a petition can be used by the
recipient for, among other things, to add the sender to the
recipient's whitelist. The petition generator can utilize data from
the petition information, the server, web pages and/or other
sources to create a petition. In one embodiment, petition
information can include descriptive information about the sender
including identification information. Although the present
disclosure is not limited by or restricted to any particular
implementation, in one embodiment the petition generator logic can
be incorporated partially or entirely into the server or into a web
page (e.g., via JavaServer Pages.TM., available from Sun
Microsystems, Inc. of Mountain View, Calif.).
[0017] Recipient 102 can include Web browser 112, petition
processor 114, access list information 116, and user preferences
information 118. The browser can display web pages provided by the
server. In one embodiment, the browser is Microsoft Internet
Explorer, available from Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash. The
petition processor processes petitions produced by the petition
generator. In one embodiment, a petition is provided to the web
browser, which then provides it to the petition processor. In
processing the petition, the petition processor can utilize the
access list, user preferences information and other information
pertaining to security settings/polices for an email client or
email provider. The access list information can include one or more
whitelists and/or one or more blacklists. User preferences can
include security polices and run-time settings that dictate how the
petition processor operates. In one embodiment, the petition
processor can be incorporated partially or entirely into an email
client program (not shown) such as Microsoft Outlook.TM., available
from Microsoft Corp. of Redmond, Wash. In another embodiment, the
petition processor can be incorporated into a challenge/response
mechanism (not shown) such as "Mailblocks", available from
Mailblocks, Inc. of Los Altos, Calif. It is important to note,
however, that the present disclosure is not limited to any
particular email client program, challenge/response mechanism, or
any other type of mail program and/or spam filter. Furthermore, the
present disclosure is not limited to any particular email protocol
or email address format.
[0018] The recipient and the sender may reside on the same
computing device or on different computing devices. By way of a
non-limiting example, a computing device can include a personal
computer, portable computer, personal digital assistant, mobile
phone, wearable digital device, wrist watch, digital music player
and a mainframe computer. Recipients and senders can communicate
over communication link 120. In one embodiment the communication
link may include one or more networks (e.g., the Internet, Wide
Area Network, Local Area Network, wireless network, and satellite
network). In another embodiment, the communication link can be
realized as shared memory (e.g., random access memory and read-only
memory), a shared object/data structure, a file system, a
distributed object (e.g., a JavaBean, CORBA object, .Net Object,
and a Web service), and/or an inter-processor data conduit in a
multi-processor (e.g., parallel) computer. In another embodiment,
the communication link can be based on any combination of the above
embodiments. Although this disclosure is not limited by or
restricted to using a particular communication protocol, one
embodiment allows the recipient and the sender to communicate using
HTTP over the Internet.
[0019] FIG. 2 is a flow chart illustrating petition generation in
one embodiment. Although this figure depicts functional steps in a
particular order for purposes of illustration, the process is not
limited to any particular order or arrangement of steps. One
skilled in the art will appreciate that the various steps portrayed
in this figure could be omitted, rearranged, combined and/or
adapted in various ways.
[0020] A sender can utilize a petition generator to create a
petition that will (potentially) allow the sender to add itself to
a recipient's whitelist. In one embodiment, this can happen as a
result of receiving the recipient's email address. By way of a
non-limiting example, the recipient's email address can be obtained
by the sender in conjunction with a Web-based purchase (i.e., a
purchased transacted over the World Wide Web), a newsletter
subscription, etc. In Step 200, the petition generator uses the
recipient's email address in concert with data drawn from the
petition information to produce a petition. Petition information
can include the sender's descriptive information (e.g., name,
description, address, etc.), identification methods and
confirmation information. These will be discussed below. The
petition information can also keep track of whether or not a
particular recipient has added the sender to their whitelist (e.g.,
whether or not a petition was accepted by a given recipient). In
such a case, the sender need not generate a petition.
[0021] For discussion purposes, a petition will be illustrated as
plain text. However, the present disclosure is not limited by or
restricted to any particular representation. Suitable
representations include but are not limited to, plain text, XML
(eXtensible Markup Language), binary data, encrypted data, and/or
any combination of these. In one embodiment, a petition can include
lines of text wherein each line includes an element name and one or
more associated values. The format of petition data is flexible and
extensible. Minimally, it can consist of the recipient's email
address, the sender's name, and the sender's identification method
and/or credentials. By way of a non-limiting example, such a
petition might appear as follows (wherein colons separate elements
from corresponding values):
[0022] Recipient: steve@xyzcompany.com
[0023] Sender: City Tribune Newspaper
[0024] Identification: from-address
newsletter@citytribunepaper.com
[0025] In this example, the recipient element has email address
"steve@xyzcompany.com" as its value. This element specifies the
email address that the sender is petitioning for permission to use.
The sender element identifiers the sender as "City Tribune
Newspaper". In one embodiment, a petition can contain a plurality
of sender elements. By way of a non-limiting example, such a
situation may arise if a sender is petitioning for inclusion on the
recipient's whitelist on behalf of itself and other senders.
[0026] A recipient may require that a sender support one or more
sender identification methods which are used by the recipient to
verify that an email message is from the given sender. Senders tell
the recipient which methods they support through the identification
element. In the above example, the identification method is
"from-address"That is, email from City Tribune Newspaper is
verified when the email header "From" address equals
"newsletter@citytribunepaper.com". This is a simple but potentially
inadequate method for identifying senders since the "From" address
is easily forged. But the present invention is not limited by or
restricted to any particular identification method. As new and
improved identification methods are developed, they can be included
in the petition without impairing the operation of existing
verification methods.
[0027] By way of a non-limiting example, consider the following
petition:
[0028] Recipient: steve@xyzcompany.com
[0029] Sender: City Tribune Newspaper
[0030] Identification: from-address
newsletter@citytribunepaper.com
[0031] Identification: header-password 294305828
[0032] Identification: IP-address 192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0
[0033] Identification: public-key F349SBF28ZKFWO
[0034] In this example, the sender has specified four
identification methods. The first method ("from-address") was
discussed above. The "header-password" method specifies a password
("294305828") that the sender will include with the header portion
of an email message sent to the recipient. In one embodiment, the
password can be assigned to the sender by the recipient and
provided to the recipient via a confirmation (see below). Another
way to identify a sender is by its Internet Protocol (IP) address.
The "IP-address" identification method allows a sender to specify
an IP address and subnet mask address which identifies a range of
source IP addresses from which it will send mail to the recipient.
A more secure identification method than those already discussed is
the use of public-key encryption technology to digitally "sign" an
email message. The "public-key" identification method allows a
sender to specify a public key ("F349SBF28ZKFWO") which can be used
by the recipient to decrypt a digital signature accompanying the
sender's email. By way of a non-limiting example, if the value of
the decrypted signature equals the value of the email header
produced by a message digest algorithm, the sender's identity is
verified.
[0035] Additional petition elements are possible since the format
of a petition is flexible and naturally extensible. Such elements
can include sender contact information (e.g., postal address,
telephone number, Web page address, etc.), the sender's business
category (e.g., retail, non-profit organization, entertainment,
etc.), the nature of the sender's email (e.g., newsletter,
promotions, transaction receipts, shipping updates, etc.), a
description of the sender, and instructions to the recipient
regarding confirmation of the outcome of the petition. By way of a
non-limiting example, consider the following petition:
[0036] Recipient: steve@xyzcompany.com
[0037] Sender: City Tribune Newspaper
[0038] Identification: from-address
newsletter@citytribunepaper.com
[0039] Identification: header-password 294305828
[0040] Identification: IP-address 192.168.5.0 255.255.255.0
[0041] Identification: public-key F349SDF28ZKFWO==
[0042] Description: Daily email version of the City Tribune
newspaper
[0043] Sender-category: Media
[0044] Sender-email-category: newsletter
[0045] Petition-success: URL http://wwwwwww
[0046] Petition-denied: URL http://xxxxxxx
[0047] Petition-success: URL http://yyyyyy
[0048] Petition-denied: URL http://zzzzzz
[0049] In this example, the sender has included a description of
itself in the petition ("Daily email version of the City Tribune
newspaper"). The sender has also specified that its business
category is "Media" and that the nature of its email to the sender
is "newsletter". In one embodiment, if a recipient accepts a
sender's identification method(s), then the recipient implicitly
trusts that the sender is not misusing the Sender-category and
Sender-email-category elements in order to increase the likelihood
that the sender will be added to the recipient's email access list.
The petition may also optionally include instructions for the
petition processor to communicate a confirmation of the outcome of
the petition (e.g., whether the sender was added to the recipient's
whitelist or not) back to the petition generator so that the
recipient's email address may be appropriately dealt with by the
sender. A sender, by way of a non-limiting example, may wish to
disallow finalization of registration on its website in cases where
the recipient does not accept the sender's petition. The
instructions for confirmation can include the method for
confirmation of the outcome and details of how to execute the
confirmation. The petition format is extensible such that new
methods may be used as they are made available. In addition, the
petition format also allows multiple confirmation methods to be
specified for the same sender, allowing for backward-compatibility
as new confirmations methods are deployed.
[0050] In one embodiment, a confirmation method allows the
recipient to access a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) on the
sender's server which has been pre-configured by the sender to
affect the desired action for the given result. In the example
above, the sender has specified two pairs of confirmation
methods:
[0051] Petition-success: URL http://wwwwwww
[0052] Petition-denied: URL http://xxxxxxx
[0053] Petition-success: URL http://yyyyyy
[0054] Petition-denied: URL http://zzzzzz
[0055] Each pair specifies a URL for the recipient to access upon
acceptance of the petition ("Petition-success") and rejection of
the petition ("Petition-denied"). In the case where the petition is
accepted, the recipient will access URLs http://wwwwwww" and
"http://yyyyyy". In the case where the petition is rejected, the
recipient will access URLs "http://xxxxxxx" and
"http://zzzzzz".
[0056] The petition processor may be configured to not honor some
or all requests for confirmation, based on user preferences,
security policies determined by an email client provider or an
email service provider, or due to programming simplifications in
the design of the petition processor.
[0057] The present disclosure is not limited by or restricted to
any particular confirmation method. As new confirmation techniques
are developed, they can be integrated into petitions using the
Petition-success and Petition-denied elements while maintaining
backwards compatibility with existing confirmation methods.
[0058] Referring again to FIG. 2., in Step 202 the petition
generator automatically provides the petition to the recipient. In
one embodiment, the petition generator provides the petition to the
server. The server tags the petition data with a specially
designated MIME (Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extension) type and
sends it to the recipient web browser via the HTTP protocol. The
browser can be configured to associate the specially designated
MIME type with the petition processor. This association can be
configured upon installation of the petition processor so as to not
require additional manual configuration by the recipient. Upon
receipt of a petition, the web browser automatically provides it to
the petition processor. The web browser can also automatically
launch the petition processor if it is not already running. In
another embodiment, the petition processor can be configured as a
web browser "plug-in".
[0059] In another embodiment, the petition can be associated with
an object, such as an image in the web page provided to the browser
by the server. The web page can include JavaScript (or other code)
which, when executed by the browser, can determine if the
recipient's browser supports the specially-designated MIME type. If
not, the JavaScript can prevent the image from being rendered.
Otherwise, the image can be rendered and the petition data
associated with it provided to the petition processor. In another
embodiment, the petition can be requested as a result of a
redirection of an initial confirmation page to a new URL. One
method of accomplishing such a redirection is by using the "meta"
HTML tag: TABLE-US-00001 <meta HTTP-EQUIV="refresh"
CONTENT="5;URL=http://www.sendersite.com/cgi-bin/petreq.pl">
[0060] In a further embodiment, the petition may be sent as an
additional URL specified in a separate frame in an HTML page, or in
a separate window.
[0061] Step 204 determines whether the sender will receive
confirmation of the petition from the recipient. If the petition
generator did not include conformation instructions (see Step 200)
in the petition, the process concludes. Otherwise, confirmation of
the success or denial of the petition by the recipient can be
automatically provided to the sender in Step 206 if the petition
processor chooses to do so. In one embodiment, if confirmation was
requested by the sender but never received, the sender can assume
that the petition was denied by the recipient.
[0062] FIG. 3 is a flow chart illustrating petition processing in
one embodiment. Although this figure depicts functional steps in a
particular order for purposes of illustration, the process is not
limited to any particular order or arrangement of steps. One
skilled in the art will appreciate that the various steps portrayed
in the figure could be omitted, rearranged and/or adapted in
various ways.
[0063] In Step 300, a determination is made as to whether there are
acceptable identification method(s) in the petition. The user
preferences information can specify the identification method(s)
that are required of potential senders. In one embodiment, the
required identification method(s) can be articulated as an
expression that is evaluated dynamically against elements and
values in the petition. By way of a non-limiting example:
TABLE-US-00002 (from-address AND header-password AND IP-address) OR
(from- address AND public-key).
[0064] The identification method expression above declares that a
petition must support either from-address, header-password, and
IP-address, or from-address and public-key identification methods.
This feature allows a flexible approach to identity verification.
In another embodiment, the user preferences information can include
rules that can be used to dynamically determine the identification
methods required based on information in the petition. In one
embodiment, rules can be specified in a natural language.
[0065] If the petition does not support the required identification
method(s), the petition is denied in Step 316. Next, in Step 318 it
is determined whether or not the sender requires a confirmation. If
confirmation is required, it is provided in Step 320. Otherwise,
processing concludes.
[0066] In Step 302, a determination is made regarding whether or
not the sender (as identified by an acceptable identification
method) is already on an email access list. If this is the case, no
action will be taken. Processing continues at Step 318 which
determines whether or not the sender requires confirmation. If
confirmation is required, it is provided in Step 320 according to
the instructions in the petition.
[0067] In one embodiment, if the sender is not currently on an
access list, the recipient end-user can be prompted for input
regarding whether to grant access to the sender based upon the
petition. In one embodiment, the prompt can allow the end-user to
choose whether to add the sender to a whitelist, a blacklist or to
simply deny the petition. In another embodiment, the prompt can
allow the user to discover if the sender is listed in a third party
registry of trusted senders. User preferences and/or security
policies determined by the email client vendor or email service
provider can specify whether the end-user should always be
prompted, never be promoted, or only prompted sometimes (based on
rules that are dynamically evaluated against information in the
petition). In one embodiment, rules can be specified in a natural
language. By way of a non-limiting example, consider the following
rule: TABLE-US-00003 if (Sender not equal "Amazon.com" OR
Identification = from-address) then prompt user.
[0068] This rule states that if the Sender is not Amazon.com or the
sender's identification method is only "from-address", then the
recipient end-user will be prompted as to what action to take.
[0069] If the sender is not already on an access list, processing
continues at Step 304. Step 304 determines based on user
preferences whether or not to consult one or more third-party
registries of trusted senders. In one embodiment, a third party
registry can be provided by TRUSTe of San Francisco, Calif. This
information may either be provided to the recipient end-user for
consideration when determining whether to grant access, or used by
the petition processor directly to automatically make access
granting decisions without recipient consultation. In one
embodiment, this behavior can be configured as a user preference.
User preferences and/or security policies determined by the email
client vendor or email service provider can specify whether
third-party registries should always, never or sometimes be
consulted (based on rules that are dynamically evaluated against
information in the petition). In one embodiment, rules can be
specified in a natural language. By way of a non-limiting example,
consider the following rule: TABLE-US-00004 if (Identification =
public-key) AND (Sender in registry ("TRUSTe")) then add sender to
whitelist. else Prompt_ser;
[0070] This rule states that if the sender is identified with a
public key and the sender is contained in the "TRUSTe" third party
registry, the sender can be added to the whitelist without
prompting, otherwise the recipient should be prompted to make the
determination of how the sender should be handled. If such
registries are to be consulted, this can take place in Step 306.
Otherwise, processing continues at Step 308.
[0071] Step 308 determines the level of access that will be
provided to the sender based on the information in the petition,
any end-user input, and any input from third party registries. If
in response to a prompt, the end-user specified that the sender
should be included on the whitelist, such is accomplished in Step
310. If in response to a prompt, the end-user specified that the
sender should be included on the blacklist, such is accomplished in
Step 312. If in response to a prompt, the end-user specified that
the petition should simply be denied, this is accomplished in Step
316. If there was no end-user input, rules in the user preferences
information can be consulted regarding what action to take. These
so-called action rules can be dynamically evaluated against the
results of consulting third-party registries and the information
contained in the petition. In one embodiment, rules can be
specified in natural language. By way of a non-limiting example,
consider the following four rules: [0072] (1) If
(Sender-category=pornography) then add sender to blacklist. [0073]
(2) If (Sender identification method=public-key) and Sender in
third-party registry, then add Sender to whitelist. [0074] (3) If
(Sender in third-party known spammer list) then add sender to
blacklist. [0075] (4) Default: Prompt_user;
[0076] In the above example, rule (1) specifies that if the sender
category is pornography, automatically add the sender to the
blacklist regardless of any other information in the petition. Rule
(2) specifies that if the sender is identified by public-key
encryption and is in a third-party registry of trusted senders, add
the sender to the whitelist. Rule (3) specifies that if the sender
is in a third-party list of known spammers, add the sender to the
black list. Finally, a default rule (4) specifies that if no other
rule applies, prompt the user to determine how to handle the
petition.
[0077] Processing continues at Step 318 which determines whether or
not the sender requires confirmation. If confirmation is required
and the petition processor chooses to allow it, it is provided in
Step 320 according to the instructions in the petition.
[0078] Web-based email providers, such as Hotmail
(http://www.hotmail.com) or Yahoo (http://www.yahoo.com) introduce
an environment where a recipient's access lists are located on the
remote systems of the web mail provider rather than on the
recipient. As such, a petition processor on the recipient will need
to read and modify access information on the mail provider. This
situation is addressed by the system of FIG. 4.
[0079] FIG. 4 is system diagram of an embodiment including a remote
mail provider. Although this diagram depicts objects as
functionally separate, such depiction is merely for illustrative
purposes. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the
objects portrayed in this figure can be arbitrarily combined or
divided into separate software, firmware or hardware components.
Furthermore, it will also be apparent to those skilled in the art
that such objects, regardless of how they are combined or divided,
can execute on the same computing device or can be arbitrarily
distributed among different computing devices connected by one or
more networks.
[0080] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 4, sender 100 includes server 104,
petition generator 106, petition information 108 and web pages 110.
Mail provider 400 includes server 402, access list information 116,
and user preferences information 118. By way of a non-limiting
example, the mail provider can support one or more of the following
email protocols: SMTP, MIME, POP and IMAP. Recipient 404 includes
web browser 112 and petition processor 406. A request to add the
sender to the mail provider's email access list begins with the
recipient's email address being provided to the sender. Based on
this email address and the petition information, the petition
generator produces a petition which is automatically provided to
the recipient's petition processor. In order to process the
petition, the petition process needs to read and update the access
lists and user preferences information. However, unlike the system
of FIG. 1, this information is no longer local to the recipient. In
one embodiment, a simple request/reply protocol can used to
exchange this information between the petition processor and the
mail provider. By way of a non-limiting example, the petition
processor can send requests to the mail provider that identify a
data source (e.g., whitelist, blacklist, user preferences, etc.)
and an operation to take on that data source (e.g., read, update,
delete, etc.). The mail provider can respond with the appropriate
data and/or a confirmation of the operation.
[0081] However, if the petition processor is also located on the
mail provider, a different approach can be taken. FIG. 5 is system
diagram of an embodiment including a remote mail provider. Although
this diagram depicts objects as functionally separate, such
depiction is merely for illustrative purposes. It will be apparent
to those skilled in the art that the objects portrayed in this
figure can be arbitrarily combined or divided into separate
software, firmware or hardware components. Furthermore, it will
also be apparent to those skilled in the art that such objects,
regardless of how they are combined or divided, can execute on the
same computing device or can be arbitrarily distributed among
different computing devices connected by one or more networks.
[0082] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 5, sender 100 includes
Web/application server 104, petition generator 106, petition
information 108 and web pages 110. Mail provider 500 includes
server 502, petition processor 114, access lists 116, and user
preferences information 118. Recipient 504 includes Web browser 112
and email proxy 506. The proxy is associated with the petition MIME
type such that when a petition is received by the browser, the
browser automatically provides it to the proxy. The proxy then
automatically forwards the petition to the mail provider petition
processor. In one embodiment, Yahoo! Default Email Application,
available from Yahoo (http://www.yahoo.com), can serve as the
proxy. The petition processor can use the web browser as its GUI
for recipient end-user interaction (e.g., prompts). Petition
confirmations need not communicate with the recipient, and may be
made directly from the petition processor on the mail provider to
the petition generator on the sender.
[0083] FIG. 6 is another system diagram of an embodiment including
a remote mail provider. Although this diagram depicts objects as
functionally separate, such depiction is merely for illustrative
purposes. It will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the
objects portrayed in this figure can be arbitrarily combined or
divided into separate software, firmware or hardware components.
Furthermore, it will also be apparent to those skilled in the art
that such objects, regardless of how they are combined or divided,
can execute on the same computing device or can be arbitrarily
distributed among different computing devices connected by one or
more networks.
[0084] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 6, sender 100 includes
Web/application server 104, petition generator 106, petition
information 108 and web pages 110. Mail provider 600 includes
server 602, petition processor 114, access lists 116, and user
preferences information 118. Recipient 604 includes Web browser
112. The petition processor is invoked via the recipient's web
browser when it accesses a special URL on the mail provider's
server, where part of the URL is the Internet location of the
petition processor, and part of the URL is an encoded version of
the petition data. The part of the URL containing the Internet
location of the petition processor can be stored in a variable or
object accessible with JavaScript or another web page scripting
language, and the part of the URL containing the encoded petition
data can be generated by the petition generator as part of an HTML
confirmation page (e.g., as provided by the sender's server to the
recipient's browser). The HTML confirmation page can also contain
Javascript or another web page scripting language to check for the
presence of such a petition processor URL, and if it exists, add
the encoded petition data, and cause the browser to access the
petition processor URL. Such an access can take place in a variety
of ways, including but not limited to, in a separate frame, in a
separate window, or as a redirection of the existing window.
[0085] One embodiment may be implemented using a conventional
general purpose or a specialized digital computer or
microprocessor(s) programmed according to the teachings of the
present disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the
computer art. Appropriate software coding can readily be prepared
by skilled programmers based on the teachings of the present
disclosure, as will be apparent to those skilled in the software
art. The invention may also be implemented by the preparation of
integrated circuits or by interconnecting an appropriate network of
conventional component circuits, as will be readily apparent to
those skilled in the art.
[0086] One embodiment includes a computer program product which is
a storage medium (media) having instructions stored thereon/in
which can be used to program a computer to perform any of the
features presented herein. The storage medium can include, but is
not limited to, any type of disk including floppy disks, optical
discs, DVD, CD-ROMs, microdrive, and magneto-optical disks, ROMs,
RAMs, EPROMs, EEPROMs, DRAMs, VRAMs, flash memory devices, magnetic
or optical cards, nanosystems (including molecular memory ICs), or
any type of media or device suitable for storing instructions
and/or data.
[0087] Stored on any one of the computer readable medium (media),
the present invention includes software for controlling both the
hardware of the general purpose/specialized computer or
microprocessor, and for enabling the computer or microprocessor to
interact with a human user or other mechanism utilizing the results
of the present invention. Such software may include, but is not
limited to, device drivers, operating systems, execution
environments/containers, and applications.
[0088] The foregoing description of the preferred embodiments of
the present invention has been provided for the purposes of
illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive
or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Many
modifications and variations will be apparent to the practitioner
skilled in the art. Embodiments were chosen and described in order
to best describe the principles of the invention and its practical
application, thereby enabling others skilled in the art to
understand the invention, the various embodiments and with various
modifications that are suited to the particular use contemplated.
It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the
following claims and their equivalents.
* * * * *
References