U.S. patent application number 15/419854 was filed with the patent office on 2017-05-18 for erroneous communication prevention apparatus for electronic mail.
The applicant listed for this patent is Gary Stephen SHUSTER. Invention is credited to Gary Stephen SHUSTER.
Application Number | 20170142059 15/419854 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 40956114 |
Filed Date | 2017-05-18 |
United States Patent
Application |
20170142059 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
SHUSTER; Gary Stephen |
May 18, 2017 |
ERRONEOUS COMMUNICATION PREVENTION APPARATUS FOR ELECTRONIC
MAIL
Abstract
An electronic mail client includes features for preventing
addressing errors in electronic messaging such as those caused by
predictive text features. A messaging client tracks addressing
parameters including the length of time since each previous
addressee has been messaged, the quantity of times selected
addressees have been co-addressees on messages, if any, whether the
addressees are designated as sensitive and whether the messages
contain sensitive subject matter. If a high risk of addressing
error is determined, the client delays transmission of the message
to permit the user to review the message recipient addresses and
correct any erroneous addressees.
Inventors: |
SHUSTER; Gary Stephen;
(Fresno, CA) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
SHUSTER; Gary Stephen |
Fresno |
CA |
US |
|
|
Family ID: |
40956114 |
Appl. No.: |
15/419854 |
Filed: |
January 30, 2017 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
12372647 |
Feb 17, 2009 |
9560003 |
|
|
15419854 |
|
|
|
|
61028846 |
Feb 14, 2008 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
H04L 51/04 20130101;
H04L 51/28 20130101; H04L 51/30 20130101 |
International
Class: |
H04L 12/58 20060101
H04L012/58 |
Claims
1. A method for preventing addressing errors in an electronic
messaging client, comprising: generating, using the electronic
messaging client comprising a processor in communication with a
messaging server, a user interface to facilitate authoring of
electronic messages in response to input from an input device in
electronic communication with the client; generating, in response
to input from the input device, at least two addressees for an
outgoing message; for at least one combination of the at least two
email addresses, querying a database to determine a frequency with
which a user of the client has sent electronic messages addressed
to both of the at least two addressees; determining whether the
frequency exceeds a predetermined frequency; and where the
frequency does not exceed the predetermined frequency, delaying
transmission of the outgoing message to permit correction or
verification of at least one addressee.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising, generating a
confirmation message, in response to determining that the frequency
does not exceed the predetermined frequency.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising, suggesting at least
one alternative addressee in response to determining that the
frequency does not exceed the predetermined frequency.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising, delaying transmission
of the outgoing message until input is received from the input
device indicating confirmation of at least one of the
addressees.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising recording the time of
day, day of week and/or holiday information for one or more of the
electronic messages and delaying transmission of the outgoing
message if the outgoing message is prepared at a time of day, day
of the week or holiday that is inconsistent with past patterns for
the addressees.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising delaying transmission
of the outgoing massage if one or more of the addressees is similar
to one or more of other addressees in the database.
7. A method for preventing addressing errors in an electronic
messaging client, comprising: generating, using an electronic
messaging client comprising a processor in communication with a
messaging server, a user interface to facilitate authoring of
electronic messages in response to input from an input device in
electronic communication with the client; searching within at least
one electronic message for the presence of at least one designated
term; identifying at least one designated recipient of the
electronic message; determining whether the combination of the
recipient and the term match warning criteria; where there is a
match for the warning criteria, presenting a confirmation request
to the user of the electronic messaging client; and not sending the
electronic message unless confirmation is received.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one designated
recipient is designated as sensitive by a user of the messaging
client.
9. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one designated
recipient is in a sensitive category of recipients.
10. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one designated term
is inconsistent with a recipient category.
11. The method of claim 7, wherein the at least one designated term
is designated as sensitive.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATION
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 12/372,647, filed Feb. 17, 2009, (U.S. Pat.
No. 9,560,003 issued Jan. 31, 2017), which claims priority pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. .sctn. 119(e) to U.S. provisional application Ser. No.
61/028,846, filed Feb. 14, 2008, which applications are expressly
incorporated herein, in their entireties.
BACKGROUND
[0002] 1. Field
[0003] The present disclosure relates to an apparatus for
preventing transmitting of electronic mail or messages to
erroneous-selected recipients.
[0004] 2. Description of Related Art
[0005] Many programs, both web-based and locally executed, and
across platforms such as personal computers, PDAs and cellular
phones, use predictive text to reduce the number of keystrokes used
to identify the addressee of a communication, Some modalities use
voice recognition or otherwise avoid the use of finger-driven input
at all. Predictive text systems generally store lists of past
addressees in a database or other memory structure, and predicted
addressees are selected from past addressees on the list. In the
alternative, or in addition, predictive entries may be selected
from addressees stored in an electronic address book or the like
belonging the prospective sender of the communication.
Notwithstanding the advantages of predictive text, it is subject to
certain disadvantages. With the decreased level of input required
to identify a addressee comes an increased risk of the predictive
text identifying the wrong addressee. If the error is not noticed
by the human operator addressing the message, the message may be
transmitted to the wrong recipient. Therefore, for users of
predictive text features, a message can be all too easily sent to
the wrong recipient, resulting in disrupted communications,
confusion, embarrassment, breach of confidentiality, or other
adverse consequences.
[0006] For example, a person who has two contacts in his address
book with the same first name, "John," may try to email "John
Smith." When the person types `jo," the predictive input system may
present him with two choices: "John Adams" and "John Smith." A
simple erroneous flick of the finger selects "John Adams" instead
of "John Smith," which if not noticed before the message is sent,
may result the email going to the wrong recipient.
[0007] Other email addressing functions may also lead to incorrect
addressees being added to a message. For example, email clients
generally provide a "reply all" functions that automatically
addresses an outgoing message with all addresses listed as
recipients of an incoming message, plus the sender of the incoming
message. The user making use of the "reply all" feature may have
intended to use a "reply" to sender only function, or may not
notice that one or more of the addressees added by the "reply all"
function should not receive the reply. Either way, the reply
message may be transmitted to an unintended addressee. Other
addressing errors may be caused by selecting the wrong message to
reply to or just unintentionally selecting the wrong addressee for
some other reason.
[0008] It would be desirable, therefore, to preserve the function
of predictive text systems in electronic message addressing, and
other addressing features, while reducing or eliminating the risk
of erroneous addressee selection that presently arises from the use
of such systems. There is no obvious solution to this problem,
however, because the speed and convenience that is the purpose of
predictive texting and other features is contrary to the purpose of
increasing accuracy and reducing risk or error. It is difficult to
conceive of a solution that effectively satisfies these diverse and
contrary objectives.
SUMMARY
[0009] An electronic mail or messaging client may be configured,
using suitable client-side software, firmware, and/or hardware, to
determine a level of risk for each addressee identified prior to
transmission of an electronic message. If a determined level of
risk for an addressee exceeds a predetermined threshold, the client
outputs an alert, such as, for example, a pop-up display message,
to alert the sender. The messaging client may require the sender to
confirm that the addressee is correct before transmitting the
message.
[0010] The electronic mail or messaging client may comprise a
processor operatively associated with random-access memory for
holding processor instructions and computational results and input
data. The processor may also be in communication with a storage
device, including a tangible computer-readable medium, for storing
software and data for use in operating the processor. Other
components of the client may include a network interface enabling
the processor to communicate with an electronic mail or messaging
server; a display screen and/or speaker for providing visible
and/or audible output to the user, and an input device, for
example, a keyboard, touchscreen, pointing device, and/or
microphone for receiving tactile and/or audible input. All of the
foregoing components may be housed in housing configured in any
suitable form factor. For example, the messaging client may be
provided in a portable, hand-held form, such as in a palm-top
computer or intelligent mobile phone. In the alternative, the
messaging client may be provided in the form of a laptop or desktop
computer. The messaging client may thus be equipped to transform
tactile or audible input into an interactive display for authoring,
addressing, and transmitting an electronic message. Any electronic
message prepared using the messaging client may be stored in a
computer-readable medium and represents a transformation of the
tactile and/or audible input received by the electronic mail client
into the form of electronic message data and into audible or
visible output representing that data.
[0011] Further transformation of the data may occur when the
electronic message is transmitted to a recipient mail client. The
message may be transferred to and recorded in different storage
medium, such as to a storage medium for a mail server, along the
transmission path. Header information may be added to the message
as one or more nodes along the transmission path, recording details
of the transmission route. Eventually the message may be accessed
by a recipient client from a local or remotely located storage
device, causing a visual display and/or audio output relaying the
message to a recipient. All of these transformations involve
changes in tangible objects that in many cases are essential to the
function and purpose of the electronic mail or messaging
system.
[0012] Correct addressing is an essential part of the message
transformation sequence. Without consistently correct addressing,
the electronic message system, including the messaging client, has
no utility or value. To effectively reduce addressing errors
introduced by predictive texting, the messaging client should be
provided with operating instructions to effectively detect
situations signaling a relatively high risk that an incorrect
addressee has been identified, without generating alerts when the
risk is relatively low. This may be accomplished using a
multi-factor analysis of contributing risk factors programmed into
the message client or server. The client or server may be
programmed to detect the presence or absence of risk factors, and
process the factor data using an appropriate algorithm to determine
a level of risk. Exemplary risk factors are described below.
[0013] For example, one risk factor may be determined from
similarity between a selected address and one or more other
addresses in the database used for predictive texting. Similarity
may be measured using algorithms that compare the characters in
address strings, the length of the address strings, and character
positions within the strings. Risk may be determined based on a
rule, for example, that the likelihood of error increases in
proportion to the degree of similarity between a selected address
and one or more other addresses in the predictive pool.
[0014] Another risk factor may be determined from the relative
frequency with which mail has been sent to a selected address in
the past. Verifying infrequent addressees may prevent erroneous
communication in an electronic mail client. For example, if a
particular address has not been a designated address in a message
from the mail client within `n` days (wherein `n` may be pre-set,
may include infinity or may be set by the user), the client may
generate and output a confirmation query, which may contain history
data. The confirmation query as displayed on an output device
connected to the client may read, for example, for a message
addressed to John Adams: "You haven't sent an email to John Adams
in 193 days, but emailed John Smith just this morning. Have you
selected the right recipient?" The client may generate and display
an input button or box requesting confirmation of "yes" or "no" in
response to the query. In response to receiving "yes" input, the
client may transmit the message. In response to receiving "no"
input, the client may prevent message transmission to permit the
user to correct the message address.
[0015] Another risk factor may be determined from analyzing past
patterns of addressee groupings. For example, determining and then
verifying unusually paired addressees may prevent inadvertent
communication in an electronic mail client. If addresssees of a
multiple-recipient message have not been emailed together
previously (or for a long predetermined time), the messaging client
may generate a confirmation message. The user may also be asked for
confirmation if the addressees have not been part of a forwarded or
replied-to message to which a non-original addressee is added. Such
a confirmation message may read, for example: "I notice you are
emailing both John Smith and Thomas Jefferson. You have never sent
both of those recipients the same message. Do you intend to do
this?" In addition, the message may suggest alternatives such as
"You have, however, frequently emailed Thomas Jefferson and John
Adams together. Do you really intend to send this to John
Smith?"
[0016] Another risk factor may be determined from analyzing past
addressing patterns in relation to the day of the week or holidays.
For example, business correspondence may be more frequently
prepared on weekdays or non-holidays, while personal correspondence
may more frequently occur on weekends or holidays. The client or
server may track these associations and alert the sender if an
addressee violates a tendency determined from past correspondence.
For example, during a weekend the client may generate a message
such as "You don't usually send mail to John Adams on a weekend.
Are you sure you don't mean to send this message to John
Smith?"
[0017] Additionally, the messaging client may permit the user to
designate "sensitive" recipients or categories of recipients as a
way of reducing addressing risk. For example, any addressee
identified in an address book as a lawyer may be denoted as
sensitive for addressing purposes. The messaging client may be
configured to require that any message to an addressee designated
as "sensitive" not be sent without confirmation. For example, the
client may generate and output a message such as "You are
attempting to email attorney Jane Hutz. You have asked that any
email to attorneys be confirmed prior to sending. Please confirm
that you wish to send this email." Optionally, messages that are
replies to emails from the same user may be excepted from the
requirement for confirmation, as a replay message is less likely to
be addressed incorrectly. Such confirmations may also be set on an
enterprise level, requiring all employees of Corporation X to
verify before sending to lawyers.
[0018] In addition, or in the alternative, the messaging client may
also be configured to support designating "sensitive" information
or subject areas to prevent unintended communication. In the
alternative, or in addition, sensitive terms may be defined by an
administrator for system-wide use by multiple clients. For example,
any email containing the term "fraud" may be set to require
additional confirmation. Such requirement may also be implemented
only where other criteria are met. For example, a messaging client
may generate a confirmation message such as: "I notice you are
emailing attorney Jane Hutz with an email containing the word
"fraud." You have asked for confirmation before sending such
emails. Please confirm that you intend to do this."
[0019] In the alternative, or in addition, the messaging client may
be configured to hold emails or messages that satisfy designated
risk criteria for a designated period before transmitting. The rule
sets that the client uses to determine whether or not a message
should be held may be the same or similar to those used to select
outgoing messages requiring additional verification. Any email
matching those criteria may be held for a specified time prior to
sending. For example, any email sent to a governmental agency (or a
".gov" address) may be held for 60 minutes prior to sending.
Optionally, the user may be informed of the holding time. The
client may be configured to permit the user to change his or her
mind during the holding period, and edit or cancel the email prior
to its delivery.
[0020] A more complete understanding of the apparatus and method
for reducing addressing or messaging errors will be afforded to
those skilled in the art, as well as a realization of additional
advantages and objects thereof, by a consideration of the following
detailed description. Reference will be made to the appended sheets
of drawings which will first be described briefly.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0021] FIG. 1 is a flow diagram showing exemplary steps of a method
for preventing erroneous electronic messages, such as may be
performed using a suitably configured electronic messaging
client.
[0022] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a system for
electronic messaging, including a suitably configured electronic
messaging client.
[0023] FIG. 3 is a block diagram showing components of an exemplary
messaging client for preventing inadvertent addressing errors.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION
[0024] FIG. 1 shows exemplary steps of a method 100 for preventing
inadvertent addressing errors in an electronic mail client. An
electronic mail or messaging client as described herein may be
configured to perform method 100 by providing executable
instructions encoded in a tangible computer-readable medium for use
by the client. In the alternative, a messaging server may be
similarly configured to perform the method, alone, or in
combination with a messaging client. The executable instructions
may be loaded into processor memory whenever the client's
electronic mail or messaging application is operating. These
executable instructions may be integrated into the mail or
messaging client, causing the client to perform the described
actions in addition to the customary functions of an electronic
mail or messaging client.
[0025] The mail or messaging client may also be configured with
instructions for predictive texting and other addressing features
as known in the art. Predictive texting operates to present a list
of past addressees that match text input into a addressee address
field of a message editing form. The list is progressively narrowed
as more characters are entered into the field. The client may be
configured to permit the user to scroll down the list and select a
recipient at any time. Although convenient for addressing, this
feature may increase the risk of erroneous addressee selection by
the user. Another automatic addressing feature that commonly leads
to addressing errors is the "reply all" function, familiar to any
user of electronic mail clients. Addressing errors may be caused in
other ways also, and the present invention is not limited to a
specific cause of addressing errors.
[0026] At 102, an electronic mail client, such as a client
operating on a personal computer, PDA, mobile telephone, or the
like, receives user input signaling intent to send electronic mail
or message to one or more destinations. This may occur, for
example, after the client has been used to prepare and address a
message, which is ready for transmission. Prior to transmitting the
electronic mail or message, the client processes each of the
addressees designated by the electronic mail or message header to
assess a risk that the addressee has been erroneously selected. In
addition, or in the alternative, the client may receive user input
designating addressee parameters, such as identifying one or more
recipient addresses in a contact as having a "sensitive" status.
The client may be configured so that confirmation is required for
all recipient addressees designated as sensitive.
[0027] The client may assess risk of error in addressing using a
weighted multi-factor analysis implemented by a programmed analysis
algorithm. In a multifactor analysis, a numerical score may be
assigned based on multiple parameters. These parameters may
include, for example, the length of time since each previous
addressee has been emailed, the quantity of times addressees have
been sent emails together, if any, the presence of designated
keywords in the message and similarity. Email parameters may be
determined from past message data that is stored, maintained and
updated on a local or remote database 105. The client may compile
past message data 104 to develop addressee activity data that may
also be stored in database 105. For example, each time a message is
transmitted from the client, the client may update an activity
score for each recipient addressee of the outgoing message. The
activity score may provide a measure of the number of times each
addressee has been a message recipient, weighted by a measure of
how recent the message activity is. Higher activity scores may be
assigned for more recent message activity. In addition, the
compiled data may include a measure of how many non-zero times the
addressee has been named as a co-addressee with other addressees in
the addressee database. This co-addressee activity may also be
weighted in a diminishing fashion with age (i.e., older messages
receive less weight) and should include an identifier for the
co-addressees for each addressee. For further example, the client
may record time-of-day, date, day-of-week, and/or holiday
information associated with outgoing message addressees, to develop
addressee chronological data for use in risk analysis.
[0028] At 106, the client may compare the addressee parameters of
an outgoing message to addressee history information stored in the
database to determine a risk that the message includes an
addressing error. This risk may be assessed as a numerical score,
for example, as an estimated probability of error. In a
multi-factor analysis, an estimated probability of error may be
increased or decreased depending on multiple message parameters.
Over time, error probability estimates may be refined and made more
accurate using user feedback to assess a correlation between
message parameter values and actual error rates. However, if such
data is not available, an ad hoc estimation of error probability
may also be useful, with an objective not indentifying some subset
of outgoing messages having a relatively high risk of addressing
error in comparison to other outgoing messages from the client.
Certain factors may be used to indicate a higher probability of
error: (1) addressee has not been recently selected as addressee
for other outgoing messages (recent activity score); (2) addressee
is in general seldom selected for other outgoing messages (absolute
activity score); (3) addressee has not been recently selected with
other addressees on other messages (recent or time weighted
inconsistent addressee grouping score); (4) addressee is in general
seldom or never selected with other addressees on other messages
(absolute inconsistent addressee grouping score); (5) addressee is
highly similar to one or more other addressees in the database
(similarity score); (6) addressee is designated as sensitive or
belongs to a sensitive category (sensitivity score); (7) addressee
is seldom a source for received messages (time-weighted or absolute
incoming message activity score); (8) message includes one or more
keywords designated as sensitive (keyword score); (9) message
includes one or more keywords that are inconsistent with addressee
category, for example, emotive words such as "love," "hate," "hug,"
etc., in a message to an addressee designated as a "customer" or
"business prospect" (subject inconsistent with addressee category
score), or (10) message is prepared on a day of the week or other
date, or time-of-day, that is inconsistent with past patterns of
mail prepared for an addressee of the message, such as a holiday
message to an address that normally is mailed to only during work
days. The foregoing factors are merely exemplary, and serve to
illustrate various factors that may be used to develop a
sophisticated estimate of a probability of error. Individual
factors may be weighted and equalized to provide an overall error
estimate.
[0029] In response to estimating a probability of addressing error,
the client may determine 107 whether or not user confirmation is
needed before the sending the electronic message, by comparing the
estimated probability with a predetermined risk threshold. For
example, the client may determine that user confirmation is
required if the estimated probability of error exceeds some
predetermined threshold, for example, 2%.
[0030] At 108, if the client determines that user confirmation is
required, the client may cause a message to be displayed on a local
display screen, or otherwise output to the user. User confirmation
may be required, for example, if any of the addressees of an
message to be sent are identified as having a relatively high
probability of error. The message may identify and display to the
client's user one or more reasons why a addressee is identified as
questionable, and warn each the user that she may be sending a
message to an unintended recipient. If none of the addressees are
identified as questionable, the client may transmit the electronic
mail to an outgoing mail server in a conventional fashion, without
providing a warning message.
[0031] The client may, in addition, provide the user with an option
to confirm that the addressees are correct in association with an
outgoing message warning. For example, if the client provides an
outgoing message warning in a pop-up window, the window may include
one or more controls enabling the user a choice of confirming that
the addressees are correctly named, or editing the electronic mail
to correct the addressees. User input may therefore be received 110
in response to the warning and request for user confirmation or
instructions. If the user confirms 112 that the addressees are
correct notwithstanding the warning, the client may send the
electronic mail to the outgoing mail server for delivery to the
originally named addressees. If the user does not confirm, the
client may determine by eliciting further user input whether or not
the user wants to edit the message addressees or other message
parameters. If the user chooses to edit the addressees, method 100
may resume again at 102 after the addressees are corrected. If the
user elects to not edit the message, the message may be saved
indefinitely 116, such as in a "drafts" folder, or simply
deleted.
[0032] For pieces of mail that do not need confirmation or for
which confirmatory user input is received, the client may determine
118 whether or not the message should be held for a defined period
before mailing. For example, all messages to a designated addressee
may be held for five minutes to reduce the risk of an inadvertent
or premature transmission. If message parameters indicate that a
piece of mail should be held, it may be held for any suitable
designated period. Otherwise, the piece of mail may be transmitted
for electronic mail delivery 122 in any suitable manner. Likewise,
after a designated holding period expires, respective mail is
transmitted for delivery 122.
[0033] FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a system 200 of
prevention of erroneous addressing in an electronic mail client in
accordance with the present disclosure. In an aspect, the system
200 may comprise a Wide Area Network (WAN) 202, network host
computer 204, multiple clients 206, a database server 208 and a
database 210. The WAN may enable connectivity between the network
host computer 204, the multiple clients 206, the database server
208 and the database 210. The network host computer 204 may
comprise a correlation application 212, which may be encoded on
computer-readable media and configured for performing steps
illustrated in the flow diagram of FIG. 1. In the alternative, each
of the multiple clients 206 may comprise a correlation program 214,
which may also be encoded on computer-readable media and configured
for performing the steps illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 1. In
yet another alternative, some of the steps illustrated in the
flowchart of
[0034] FIG. 1 may be performed by the correlation application 212
and some of the steps illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 1 may be
performed by the correlation program 214. The database server 208
and attached database 210 may be coupled to the network host
computer 204 to store the database entries used in the method
illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 1. Alternatively, the database
server 208 and/or database 210 may be connected to the WAN 202 and
may be operable to be accessed by the network host computer 204 via
the WAN 202.
[0035] The multiple clients 206 may each further comprise an
internal hard disk 216 for storing the correlation program 214, a
processor 218 for executing the correlation program 214 and/or
performing other background tasks and an internal bus 220 for
internally connecting the hard disk 216 and the processor 218. The
hard disk 216 may also be configured to store the database entries
used in the method illustrated in the flowchart of FIG. 1. The
output of the method illustrated by the flowchart of FIG. 1, the
message, may be displayed on the multiple clients 206 via a display
222 in accordance with the matching email parameters.
[0036] In some embodiments, an electronic messaging client may be
configured to perform method 100 or essential portions thereof, in
accordance with the understanding that messaging is a function tied
to personal messaging preferences and history. The messaging client
may be a remote or local client. FIG. 3 shows exemplary components
of a messaging client 300, consistent with the foregoing. Client
300 may comprise a microprocessor or controller 302 coupled via a
bus or other connection to certain components permitting the client
to receive tangible input from a user, process the input to
generate message data, and to display message data on a display
device 304 via a graphics subsystem 305. User input may be received
via any suitable input device, including, for example, a keyboard
306, and mouse or other pointer 308, and a microphone 310. Another
increasingly prevalent input device is a touchscreen 312 that may
be integrated with display 304. All of these devices function to
transform physical input from the user environment into electronic
input data that can be processed by microprocessor 302. At least
one device of this type is essential to the operation of a
messaging system and client as described herein. It should be
apparent that a messaging system that is unable to receive user
input would be useless.
[0037] Other essential components of the messaging client 300 may
include a network interface device 314 enabling communication with
external devices via a network 316. Although a wide area network is
commonly used for messaging, the technology is not limited to any
particular type of network. The network merely needs to provide
communication between the client and at least one mail or messaging
server. The client may include multiple communication devices, for
example, a wireless interface 318 enabling communication to a
wireless network or local wireless device, such as using cellular
or Bluetooth.TM. technology.
[0038] Memory components are also essential to operation of the
client device. A typical client may include more than one type of
memory device. In the illustrated example, the client includes a
flash memory device 320. Flash memory is a type of non-volatile
memory that may be used to store core applications, for example, an
operating system, when the client is powered off. These core
applications may be automatically loaded into processor working
memory, for example, random access memory 322 (RAM), when the
client is powered on. Many processors also include specialized
cache memory designed to facilitate accelerated processing, which
may interact with RAM to handle program instructions and data. The
client may further comprise a large non-volatile storage device
324, for example disk or solid-state storage comprising a
computer-readable medium. Program instructions 326 may be stored on
storage device 324, loaded in RAM 322 and thereby cause the client
to perform a method as described herein, in response to user input.
Message and other data may also be stored in the storage device
324, including but not limited to addressee pattern data for
determining addressee error risk factors. Client 300 may be housed
in a housing of any desired size (not shown).
[0039] Having thus described embodiments of a method and system of
prevention of erroneous addressing in an electronic messaging
client, it should be apparent to those skilled in the art that
certain advantages of the within system have been achieved. It
should also be appreciated that various modifications, adaptations,
and alternative embodiments thereof may be made within the scope
and spirit of the present invention. For example, a system operable
over a wide area network has been illustrated, but it should be
apparent that the inventive concepts described above would be
equally applicable to systems operating over other networks. For
further example, the present disclosure emphasizes address
correction performed by a client, but the present technology may
also be carried out by a messaging server, or by a server and a
client working cooperatively, as discussed in connection with FIG.
2. The invention is defined by the appended claims.
* * * * *