Dynamic filter generation for message management systems

• US 9,871,751 B2
• Filed: 11/10/2015
• Issued: 01/16/2018
• Est. Priority Date: 03/27/2014
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Dropbox, Inc.
• Original Assignee: Dropbox, Inc.
• Inventors: Beausoleil, Sean, Dubie, Jack, Underwood, IV, George Milton, Cue, Adam, DeVincenzi, Anthony, Roeder, Michael
• Primary Examiner(s): DAILEY, THOMAS J
• Application Number:
  US14/937,658
• Publication Number:
  US 20160065517A1
• Time in Patent Office: 798 Days
• Field of Search: None
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/107 Computer-aided management of electronic mailing [e-mailing]
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 51/212 using filtering or selective blocking
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 51/214 using selective forwarding
• CPC Class Codes: H04L 51/234 for tracking messages

Abstract

Filtering rules for incoming messages can be dynamically generated by a message management service based on patterns in the user'"'"'s behavior. The message management service can analyze event records associating user actions with features of messages to detect correlations between message features and resulting actions, including correlations across multiple messaging accounts belonging to the same user. Based on correlations, the message management service can provide a suggested rule to the user'"'"'s client device, and the user can accept or decline the suggestion.

Claims

1. A computer implemented method comprising:

receiving, at a message management service, a plurality of messages for a user;

analyzing, by the message management service, a plurality of event records for the user, each event record including a set of message features of a different one of the plurality of messages and event information indicating an action taken by the user on the message, to detect a correlation between a first triggering condition based at least in part on one or more of the message features and a first resulting action that is taken by the user on at least a minimum fraction of messages satisfying the first triggering condition;

generating, by the message management service, based on the analysis, a first suggested rule to automatically perform the first resulting action on future messages satisfying the first triggering condition;

sending, by the message management service, the first suggested rule to a client device associated with the user;

obtaining from the client device, by the message management service, event information indicating a user response to the first suggested rule;

in the event that the user response indicates that the user accepted the first suggested rule, adding, by the message management service, the first suggested rule to a set of established rules to be automatically applied to messages received for the user; and

in the event that the user response indicates that the user has expressly rejected the first suggested rule, determining, by the message management service, when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again at a later time based on a new message that satisfies the first triggering condition based at least in part on the user response.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again includes:

in response to the user expressly rejecting the first suggested rule;

initializing a delay counter, wherein the message management service does not send the first suggested rule to the client device again until the delay counter reaches a limit; and

incrementing a rejection counter to count a number of rejections of the first suggested rule by the user.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the delay counter is based on an elapsed time since receiving the user response.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the delay counter is based on a number of instances, subsequent to receiving the user response, in which a message to which the first suggested rule applies was acted on by the user.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 further comprising:

determining whether the rejection counter has reached an upper limit; and

in the event that the rejection counter has reached an upper limit, adding the first suggested rule to a list of suppressed rules, wherein the message management service does not send suppressed rules to the client device.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the client device is one of a plurality of client devices associated with the user and wherein, in response to determining that the user expressly rejected the first suggested rule, the message management service does not send the first suggested rule to any of the client devices associated with the user until the delay counter reaches the limit.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again includes:

determining, based on the user response, whether the user requested to be asked again about the first suggested rule; and

in response to determining that the user requested to be asked again about the first suggested rule;

initializing a delay counter, wherein the message management service does not send the first suggested rule again until the delay counter reaches a limit.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again includes:

determining, based on the user response, whether the user response to the first suggested rule is an ambiguous response; and

in response to determining that the user response is the ambiguous response;

incrementing an ambiguous-response counter to count a number of received ambiguous responses,

wherein the message management service suppresses sending of all suggested rules in the event that the ambiguous-response counter reaches a maximum value and wherein the ambiguous-response counter is reset in the event that a user response other than the ambiguous response is received.

9. A system comprising:

one or more processors; and

a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to;

communicate with a client device operable by a user;

receive messages for the user from one or more messaging services;

generate event records based on messages for the user received from the one or more messaging services and based on event information received from the client device, each event record including a set of message features of a message and event information indicating an action taken by the user on the message;

analyze the event records to detect correlations between a triggering condition based at least in part on one or more of the message features and a resulting action that is taken by the user on at least a minimum fraction of messages satisfying the triggering condition;

generate suggested rules based on the detected correlations;

send the particular suggested rule to the client device based on the determination;

receive a user response to the particular suggested rule;

add the particular suggested rule to the set of established rules in the event that the user response to the particular suggested rule indicates that the user accepts the particular suggested rule; and

send the particular suggested rule to the client device at a later time based on a new message that satisfies the triggering condition in the event that the user response to the particular suggested rule indicates that the user expressly rejects the particular suggested rule.

10. The system of claim 9 wherein the user response includes a response selected from a group consisting of:

a positive response indicating that the user expressly accepts the particular suggested rule;

a negative response indicating that the user expressly rejects the particular suggested rule;

a deferral response indicating that the user expressly defers a decision on whether to accept the particular suggested rule; and

an ambiguous response indicating that the user failed to provide a specific response to the particular suggested rule.

11. The system of claim 10 wherein in response to receiving the negative response, the instructions cause the processors to:

initialize a delay counter delay sending the particular suggested rule to the client device again until the delay counter reaches a limit;

increment a rejection counter to count a number of rejections of the particular suggested rule by the user; and

suppress the particular suggested rule in the event that the rejection counter reaches an upper limit.

12. The system of claim 10 wherein in response to receiving the deferral response, the instructions cause the processors to:

initialize a delay counter; and

delay sending the particular suggested rule again until the delay counter reaches a limit.

13. The system of claim 10 in response to receiving the ambiguous response, the instructions cause the processors to:

increment an ambiguous-response counter to count a number of times the ambiguous response was received; and

suppress sending of all suggested rules in the event that the ambiguous-response counter reaches a maximum value; and

reset the ambiguous-response counter in the event that a user response other than the ambiguous response is received.

14. The system of claim 9 wherein the instructions cause the processors to:

receive messages from two or more messaging services, wherein the set of message features for each message includes a messaging service identifier identifying the one of the messaging services from which the message was received, and wherein the triggering condition is based at least in part on the messaging service identifier.

15. The system of claim 9 wherein the event information received from the client device further includes client context information pertaining to the action taken by the user, the client context information including one or more of:

a client device type indicator;

a time when the action was taken by the user;

or

a location of the client device when the action was taken by the user, and

wherein the triggering condition is based at least in part on an element of the client context information.

16. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon program code instructions that, when executed by a processor of a message management service, cause the message management service to perform a method comprising:

receiving a plurality of messages for a user;

analyzing a plurality of event records for the user, each event record including a set of message features of a different one of the plurality of messages and event information indicating an action taken by the user on the message, to detect a correlation between a first triggering condition based at least in part on one or more of the message features and a first resulting action that is taken by the user on at least a minimum fraction of messages satisfying the first triggering condition;

generating, based on the analysis, a first suggested rule to automatically perform the first resulting action on future messages satisfying the first triggering condition;

sending the first suggested rule to a client device associated with the user;

obtaining, from the client device, event information indicating a user response to the first suggested rule;

in the event that the user response indicates that the user accepted the first suggested rule, adding the first suggested rule to a set of established rules to be automatically applied to messages received for the user; and

in the event that the user response indicates that the user has expressly rejected the first suggested rule, determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again at a later time based on a new message that satisfies the first triggering condition based at least in part on the user response.

17. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16 wherein the user response indicating that the user has not accepted the first suggested rule is one of:

a negative response indicating that the user expressly rejects the first suggested rule;

a deferral response indicating that the user expressly defers a decision on whether to accept the first suggested rule;

or

an ambiguous response indicating that the user failed to provide a specific response to the first suggested rule.

18. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 wherein, after receiving the negative response, the first suggested rule is not sent again until a first delay period expires.

19. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 wherein, after receiving the deferral response, the first suggested rule is not sent again until a second delay period expires, the second delay period being shorter than the first delay period.

20. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 wherein the first delay period and the second delay period are based on a number of instances, subsequent to receiving the user response, in which a message to which the first suggested rule applies was acted on by the user.

21. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17 wherein the method further comprises, in response to receiving the ambiguous response:

incrementing an ambiguous-response counter; and

suppressing the sending of any suggested rules in the event that the ambiguous-response counter reaches a maximum value, wherein the ambiguous-response counter is reset in response to receiving any user response other than the ambiguous response.