Federated challenge credit system

• US 20060242244A1
• Filed: 04/04/2005
• Published: 10/26/2006
• Est. Priority Date: 04/04/2005
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a Facebook, Inc.)
• Original Assignee: AOL Inc. (Apollo Global Management, Inc.)
• Inventors: Goldman, Phillip Y., Landsman, Richard A., Goldman, Susan Rayl, Sullivan, Timothy T., Logue, Jay D.
• Granted Patent: US 7,647,381 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 709/206
• 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

Abstract

Systems and methods for reducing the number of challenge messages that are sent in response to an incoming message in situations where the incoming message is likely not unsolicited. The systems and methods include evaluating the behavior of a sender with regard to one or more federated messaging services and determining if the sender is approved or unapproved. If the sender is approved, the incoming message is deliver to a recipient'"'"'s inbox without issuing a challenge message. Unapproved senders are required to respond to a challenge message.

Claims

1. In a first server included in a first electronic messaging system capable of receiving electronic messages, the first server associated with a first database, a method of determining whether an incoming electronic message should initiate a filter mechanism, the method comprising:

receiving an incoming message;

identifying a first sender associated with the incoming message;

maintaining behavioral information about the first sender on a database associated with the first server;

receiving behavioral information for at least the first sender from a second server;

applying predetermined criteria to the behavioral information stored in the database and the behavioral information received from the second server to determine if the sender is approved or unapproved;

sending the incoming messages directly to a recipient'"'"'s inbox if the sender is determined to be approved; and

initiating a filter mechanism if the sender is determined to be unapproved.

2. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein receiving behavioral information for at least the first sender from a second server comprises at least one of:

requesting the behavioral information from the second server and receiving the behavioral information in response to the request;

receiving the behavioral information without a request for behavioral information from the second server at predetermined intervals;

or

receiving the behavioral information from the second server, the behavioral information being embedded in the incoming electronic message.

3. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein applying predetermined criteria to the updated behavioral information to determine if the sender is approved comprises at least one of:

evaluating the number of messages that the first sender has transmitted to at least the first electronic messaging system and the second electronic messaging system;

evaluating the change in the number of messages that the first sender has transmitted to at least the first electronic messaging system and the second electronic messaging system, the change being measured from a previous state to a present state;

evaluating a binary indicator from at least the first electronic messaging system and a second electronic messaging system, the binary indicator representing whether the sender is provisionally approved or unapproved at each of the first electronic messaging system and the second electronic messaging system;

or

evaluating a score from at least the first electronic messaging systems and the second electronic messaging system, the score representing a confidence level regarding the sender.

4. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein receiving behavioral information for at least the first sender from the second server comprises at least one of:

receiving behavioral information for only the first sender;

or

receiving behavioral information for any sender who has sent electronic messages to the second server whose behavior has changed since the most recent transmission of behavioral information from the second server to the first server.

5. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising maintaining the behavioral information from the second server on the database associated with the first server.

6. The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising sending behavioral information about the sender to the second server.

7. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second server is associated with a second electronic messaging system capable of receiving electronic messages.

8. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the second server serves as a central repository for behavioral information from servers associated with two or more electronic messaging services.

9. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein applying predetermined criteria to the behavioral information stored in the database and the behavioral information received from the second server to determine if the sender is approved or unapproved comprises concluding that a sender is unapproved if the behavioral information from any of the other electronic messaging systems indicates that the sender is unapproved.

28. The method as recited in claim 1, wherein the filter mechanism is a challenge/response protocol.

10. In a network including two or more electronic message systems capable of receiving electronic messages, a method of determining whether an incoming electronic message to one of the two or more electronic message systems should initiate a filter mechanism, the method comprising:

tracking behavioral information for one or more senders;

evaluating the sender behavioral information for one or more senders to determine whether each sender is approved or unapproved;

sending incoming messages from a sender directly to a recipient'"'"'s inbox if the sender is determined to be approved; and

initiating a filter mechanism in response to an incoming message from the sender if the sender is determined to be unapproved.

11. The method as recited in claim 10, wherein tracking behavioral information for one or more senders comprises at least one of:

maintaining the behavioral information in a data structure associated with each electronic message systems;

or

maintaining the behavioral information in a data structure associated with a server to which each electronic message system has access.

12. The method as recited in claim 10, evaluating the sender behavioral information for one or more senders to determine whether each sender is approved or unapproved comprises exchanging behavioral information of senders between at least two electronic messaging systems.

13. The method as recited in claim 12, wherein exchanging behavioral information of senders between at least two electronic messaging systems comprises at least one of:

the first electronic messaging system requesting behavioral information of only one of the senders from the second electronic messaging system and the second electronic messaging system transmitting the behavioral information of that sender in response to the request;

the first electronic messaging system requesting behavioral information of two or more senders from the second electronic messaging system and the second electronic messaging system transmitting the behavioral information of the two or more senders in response to the request;

the second electronic messaging system transmitting behavioral information at predetermined intervals;

or

the second electronic messaging system generating the incoming message to be sent to the first electronic messaging system and embedding the behavioral information of the sender in the incoming message.

14. The method as recited in claim 10, wherein the behavioral information is expressed as at least one of:

a count of electronic messages received from one or more senders at the two or more electronic message systems;

a comparison in the number of electronic messages received from one or more senders at the two or more electronic message systems in a certain period of time;

a binary indicator generated for each of the one or more senders for each of the one or more electronic message systems, each binary indicator representing whether the sender is provisionally approved or unapproved at each of the electronic messaging systems;

or

a score generated for each of the one or more senders, the score representing a confidence level as to whether the sender approved.

15. The method as recited in claim 10, wherein evaluating the sender behavioral information for one or more senders to determine whether each sender is approved or unapproved comprises comparing the behavior of a particular sender against behavior that is considered unsolicited.

29. The method as recited in claim 10, wherein the filter mechanism is a challenge/response protocol.

16. In a network including two or more electronic message systems capable of receiving electronic messages, a system comprising:

a server associated with a first electronic message system, the server comprising a behavioral evaluation module configured to perform at least one of;

storing behavioral information about one or more senders that transmit incoming messages to the first electronic message system on a database associated with the server,

sharing behavioral information on one or more senders with a second electronic message system,

comparing the behavior of a particular sender against behavior that is considered indicative of an unsolicited sender, wherein a sender that is considered unsolicited is an unapproved sender and a sender that is not considered unsolicited is an approved sender,

communicating with a filter mechanism associated with a recipient'"'"'s inbox to prevent the filter mechanism from being initiated and allowing delivery of an incoming message from an approved sender to the recipient'"'"'s inbox, or

communicating with the filter mechanism associated with a recipient'"'"'s inbox to initiate the filter mechanism in response to an incoming message from an unapproved sender.

17. The server as recited in claim 16, wherein sharing behavioral information on one or more senders with a second electronic message system comprises sending behavioral information stored on the database associated with a server to the second electronic message system.

18. The server as recited in claim 16, wherein sharing behavioral information on one or more senders with a second electronic message system comprises sending behavioral information stored on the database associated with a server with which both the first and second electronic message system can access information.

19. The server as recited in claim 16, wherein comparing the behavior of a particular sender against behavior that is considered indicative of an unsolicited sender comprises determining the number of incoming messages that a sender transmits to all of the one or more electronic messaging services.

20. The server as recited in claim 16, wherein comparing the behavior of a particular sender against behavior that is considered indicative of an unsolicited sender comprises comparing a flag generated by each electronic messaging service for that particular sender to indicate whether the sender is provisionally approved or unapproved.

31. The system as recited in claim 16, wherein the filter mechanism is a challenge/response protocol.

21. A method for determining whether to initiate a filter mechanism in response to an electronic message from a sender, the method comprising:

receiving an electronic message from the sender;

evaluating the sender of the electronic message based on behavioral information received from one or more federated servers to determine whether the sender is approved or unapproved;

sending the electronic message from the sender directly to a recipient'"'"'s inbox if the sender is determined to be approved; and

initiating a filter mechanism in response to the electronic message from the sender if the sender is determined to be unapproved.

22. A method as defined in claim 21, wherein evaluating the sender of the electronic information based on behavioral information received from one or more federated servers further comprises communicating with one or more servers to receive behavioral information relating to the sender.

23. A method as defined in claim 22, where communicating with one or more servers to receive behavioral information relating to the sender further comprises issuing a request to the one or more servers, wherein the request includes a federated token that enables the one or more servers to recognize the request as a request for the behavioral information without issuing a challenge to the request.

24. A method as defined in claim 22, further comprising:

receiving a response to the request from the one or more servers; and

including the response in the behavioral information.

25. A method as defined in claim 22, further comprising providing a response to a particular server included in the one or more servers in response to a request for behavioral information from the particular server.

26. A method as defined in claim 22, wherein evaluating the sender of the electronic information based on behavioral information received from one or more federated servers further comprises at least one of:

evaluating a score from each of the one or more servers, the score representing a confidence level in the sender;

evaluating a status flag from each of the one or more servers, the status flag indicating that the sender is either approved or unapproved;

or

evaluating a number of messages sent by the sender in a certain period of time.

27. A method as defined in claim 22, wherein the behavioral information represents at least one of:

the number of electronic messages the sender sends in a given time period;

the amount of time required to generate each electronic message;

the time of day the electronic messages are sent;

the variation in content from one electronic message to the next;

or

characteristics that suggest the electronic message was generated by a person.

30. The method as recited in claim 21, wherein the filter mechanism is a challenge/response protocol.