Controlling electronic messages

• US 7,945,954 B2
• Filed: 09/06/2005
• Issued: 05/17/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 09/07/2004
• Status: Expired due to Fees

• Current Assignee: Customer Logic Company, LLC
• Original Assignee: Customer Logic Company, LLC
• Inventors: Coueignoux, Philippe J. M.
• Primary Examiner(s): Homayounmehr; Farid
• Application Number:
  US11/220,791
• Publication Number:
  US 20060053279A1
• Time in Patent Office: 2,079 Days
• Field of Search: 726/22
• US Class Current: 726/22
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 51/212 using filtering or selective blocking
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/0209 Architectural arrangements, e.g. perimeter networks or demilitarized zones
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/0236 Filtering by address, protocol, port number or service, e.g. IP-address or URL
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 63/0823 using certificates cryptographic mechanisms or cryptographic arrangements for entity authentication involving certificates H04L9/3263

Abstract

A receiver is shielded from undesirable electronic messages, sometimes referred to as “spam”, by requiring any sender who wants to send an electronic message to the receiver to first submit to a filter. The filter is specified by the receiver. The receiver-specified filter can be downloaded to the sender'"'"'s computer and executed on the sender'"'"'s computer. By execution, the filter elicits information from the sender and uses it without disclosing it to authorize, or not, the sending of electronic messages (such as email) from the sender to the receiver. Another embodiment according to the invention allows a sender to prevent undesirable receivers from viewing the sender-sent electronic messages by requiring any receiver who wants to view an electronic message from an authorized sender to first submit to a filter. One or more third parties can be involved. For example, senders can be recommended to and/or approved for receivers by one or more certifying third parties, and receivers can be recommended to and/or approved for senders by one or more certifying third parties.

Claims

1. A computing system for access by at least one potential sender in order for the potential sender to become acceptable to a receiver and thus be allowed to send one or more electronic messages to the receiver, the potential sender not having yet been determined to be acceptable to the receiver before the potential sender accesses the computing system, the computing system for executing a filter defined by the receiver, the filter including a communication for the potential sender and also including a criterion for applying to at least one fact whose value is to be provided in response to the communication, the computing system comprising:

a processor; and

at least one computer readable medium for storing one or more software programs which are executed by the processor to cause the computing system to execute the filter and thereby;

present the communication to the potential sender to elicit the value of the fact from the potential sender;

receive the value of the fact from the potential sender;

provide the value of the fact to the filter;

make the filter apply the filter'"'"'s criterion to the value of the fact to determine whether or not the potential sender is acceptable to the receiver;

receive from the filter the determination about whether the potential sender is acceptable to the receiver; and

send at least one electronic message from the determined-acceptable potential sender to the receiver, all the while keeping the filter'"'"'s criterion inaccessible to the potential sender and also keeping the value of the fact confidential and undisclosed to anyone by preventing the value of the fact from leaving the computing system in a form which would enable anyone besides the potential sender, including the receiver and any third party, to learn the value of the fact.

2. The computing system of claim 1 wherein execution of the one or more software programs causes the computing system to keep the criterion inaccessible to the potential sender by maintaining the criterion under encryption.

3. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the computing system comprises a personal computer, a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a workstation computer, or a handheld device.

4. The computing system of claim 3 wherein the handheld device comprises a phone.

5. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the at least one computer readable medium comprises one or more of a hard disk, a CD-ROM, and RAM.

6. The computing system of claim 1 wherein execution of the one or more software programs causes the computing system to store the value of the fact received from the potential sender.

7. The computing system of claim 6 wherein execution of the one or more software programs causes the computing system, in subsequent executions of the filter, to automatically provide the stored value to the filter instead of presenting the communication again to the potential sender and instead of receiving the value back again from the potential sender.

8. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the at least one electronic message comprises a text or a voice message.

9. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the at least one electronic message is sent and received in real time.

10. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the potential sender provides the computing system with the filter.

11. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the potential sender tells the computing system to download the filter from a computing system operated by the receiver.

12. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the potential sender tells the computing system to download the filter from a computing system operated by a third party.

13. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the potential sender tells the computing system to download the filter from an address provided by a third party.

14. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the filter is defined according to a filter template.

15. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the filter comprises an expiration date after which any attempt to apply the filter will fail.

16. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the filter elicits the value of a plurality of facts from the potential sender.

17. The computing system of claim 16 wherein the filter follows a script language to present a plurality of communications, comprising questions and statements, to the potential sender.

18. The computing system of claim 16 wherein the plurality of facts covers a predefined vocabulary of standard facts, the computing system stores the values of the plurality of facts into a profile of the potential sender and automatically provides these profile values to a plurality of filters subsequently defined by a plurality of receivers to elicit the values of facts taken from the vocabulary.

19. The computing system of claim 16 or claim 18 wherein the filter determines the acceptability of the potential sender by applying a plurality of criteria on the values of the plurality of facts according to Boolean logic.

20. The computing system of claim 16 or claim 18 wherein the filter determines the acceptability of the potential sender by computing a score based on the values of the plurality of facts.

21. The computing system of claim 18 wherein the computing system is given an electronic message to send by the potential sender before executing the plurality of filters and automatically sends an instance of the electronic message to each of the plurality of receivers whose filter has determined the potential sender to be acceptable.

22. The computing system of claim 21 wherein the computing system downloads the plurality of filters from an address list provided by a third party.

23. The computing system of claim 21 wherein each of the plurality of filters is defined using one of a plurality of vocabularies, each vocabulary characterizing one of a plurality of domains, and wherein the computing system is further given a plurality of electronic messages, each one attached to a specific domain, and send, when allowed by a filter, an instance of the electronic message whose domain is the same as the domain of the filter.

24. The computing system of claim 21 wherein the electronic message comprises a counter-filter used by the potential sender to determine if the receiver is acceptable to the potential sender and further comprises a communication to be presented to the receiver if the receiver is determined to be acceptable to the potential sender, this communication prompting the receiver to acknowledge this mutual acceptability by sending back a second electronic message to the potential sender, and further wherein the computing system receives the second electronic message from the receiver found acceptable to the potential sender and presents this second electronic message to the potential sender.

25. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the filter further elicits whether the potential sender is recommended or not by a third party known to both the potential sender and the receiver, wherein the acceptability of the potential sender to the receiver further requires that the potential sender be indeed recommended by the third party, and further wherein the recommendation of the potential sender by the third party is disclosed to the receiver as part of the electronic message sent to the receiver, the receiver being able to communicate this recommendation to the third party acting as a recommender to verify its truthfulness.

26. The computing system of claim 22 or 25 wherein the computing system receives from a third party willing to recommend the potential sender a list of addresses, each for a filter defined by a receiver who requires the potential sender to be recommended by the third party.

27. The computing system of claim 25 wherein the filter executed by the computing device comprises an original filter defined by a fourth party as represented by the receiver together with the additional requirement that the potential sender be indeed recommended by the third party and further wherein the message sent by the computing system comprises the communication required for the receiver to verify the truthfulness of the recommendation and a final message to be forwarded by the receiver to the fourth party.

28. The computing system of claim 1 wherein the computing system executes the filter in a tamper-resistant environment to prevent the potential sender from interfering with the determination of the potential sender'"'"'s acceptability to the receiver.

29. A computing system for access by at least one potential sender in order for the potential sender to become acceptable to a receiver and thus be allowed to send one or more electronic messages to the receiver, the potential sender not having yet been determined to be acceptable to the receiver before the potential sender accesses the computing system, the computing system for executing a filter defined by the receiver, the filter including a criterion for applying to at least one fact whose value is to be provided in response to the filter, the computing system comprising:

a processor; and

at least one computer readable medium for storing one or more software programs which are executed by the processor to cause the computing system to

elicit the value of the fact from the potential sender,

receive the value of the fact from the potential sender, and

store the value of the fact and subsequently to execute the filter and thereby to;

receive a request for the value of the fact from the filter;

automatically provide the stored value of the fact to the filter;

make the filter apply the filter'"'"'s criterion to the value of the fact to determine whether or not the potential sender is acceptable to the receiver;

receive from the filter the determination about whether the potential sender is acceptable to the receiver; and

send at least one electronic message from the determined-acceptable potential sender to the receiver, all the while keeping the filter'"'"'s criterion inaccessible to the potential sender and also keeping the value of the fact confidential and undisclosed to anyone by preventing the value of the fact from leaving the computing system in a form which would enable anyone besides the potential sender, including the receiver and any third party, to learn the value of the fact.

30. The computing system of claim 29 wherein the value of a plurality of facts is elicited from the potential sender.

31. The computing system of claim 30 wherein the plurality of facts covers a predefined vocabulary of standard facts, the computing system stores the values of the plurality of facts into a profile of the potential sender and automatically provides these profile values to a plurality of filters subsequently defined by a plurality of receivers to elicit the values of facts taken from the vocabulary.

32. The computing system of claim 30 or claim 31 wherein the filter determines the acceptability of the potential sender by applying a plurality of criteria on the values of the plurality of facts according to Boolean logic.

33. The computing system of claim 30 or claim 31 wherein the filter determines the acceptability of the potential sender by computing a score based on the values of the plurality of facts.

34. The computing system of claim 31 wherein the computing system is given an electronic message to send by the potential sender before executing the plurality of filters and automatically sends an instance of the electronic message to each of the plurality of receivers whose filter has determined the potential sender to be acceptable.

35. The computing system of claim 34 wherein the computing system downloads the plurality of filters from an address list provided by a third party.

36. The computing system of claim 34 wherein each of the plurality of filters is defined using one of a plurality of vocabularies, each vocabulary characterizing one of a plurality of domains, and wherein the computing system is further given a plurality of electronic messages, each one attached to a specific domain, and send, when allowed by a filter, an instance of the electronic message whose domain is the same as the domain of the filter.

37. The computing system of claim 34 wherein the electronic message comprises a counter-filter used by the potential sender to determine if the receiver is acceptable to the potential sender and further comprises a communication to be presented to the receiver if the receiver is determined to be acceptable to the potential sender, this communication prompting the receiver to acknowledge this mutual acceptability by sending back a second electronic message to the potential sender, and further wherein the computing system receives the second electronic message from the receiver found acceptable to the potential sender and presents this second electronic message to the potential sender.

38. The computing system of claim 29 wherein the computing system, either prior to, or as part of, the filter execution, further elicits whether the potential sender is recommended or not by a third party known to both the potential sender and the receiver, wherein the acceptability of the potential sender to the receiver further requires that the potential sender be indeed recommended by the third party, and further wherein the recommendation of the potential sender by the third party is disclosed to the receiver as part of the electronic message sent to the receiver, the receiver being able to communicate this recommendation to the third party acting as a recommender to verify its truthfulness.

39. The computing system of claim 35 or 38 wherein the computing system receives from a third party willing to recommend the potential sender a list of addresses, each for a filter defined by a receiver who requires the potential sender to be recommended by the third party.

40. The computing system of claim 38 wherein the filter executed by the computing device comprises an original filter defined by a fourth party as represented by the receiver together with the additional requirement that the potential sender be indeed recommended by the third party and further wherein the message sent by the computing system comprises the communication required for the receiver to verify the truthfulness of the recommendation and a final message to be forwarded by the receiver to the fourth party.

41. The computing system of claim 29 wherein the computing system executes the filter in a tamper-resistant environment to prevent the potential sender from interfering with the determination of the potential sender'"'"'s acceptability to the receiver.