SYSTEM FOR ELIMINATING UNAUTHORIZED ELECTRONIC MAIL
A system for eliminating unauthorized email sent to a user on a network analyzes the sender address of incoming email and determines whether it is to be rejected by returning a standard “no such user” error code or accepted depending upon executing processing rules and analyzing managed lists of authorized senders. This provides an advantage over existing anti-spam filtering systems by intercepting unauthorized email before it reaches an existing email server or client. The system rejects all email unless authorized by using a standard “no such user” error code, and by redirecting the unauthorized email back to the sender or to a sender evaluation site. An ASL module captures authorized sender addresses from the user's outgoing email and other sources in order to update “authorized senders” lists. The system may employ a WBM procedure that notifies senders of rejected email to go to a separate website and register as valid senders after passing an interaction test that precludes automatic registration by a mechanical program. A destination proxy email address procedure allows subscribers to use temporary proxy addresses for receiving email expected from unknown sources and instantiates senders as authorized upon receiving the expected email to the proxy addresses. The unauthorized-email rejection component can be readily configured as a hardware or software appliance used in tandem with a conventional email server, email gateway, or firewall to an intranet, or as a software extension to an existing firewall system.
This continuation-in-part U.S. patent application claims the priority of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/648,894, filed on Aug. 25, 2000, entitled “System for Eliminating Unauthorized Electronic Mail”, which claimed the priority of U.S. Provisional Application 60/150,025, filed on Sep. 1, 1999, entitled “Unwanted Email Filtering System”, and U.S. Provisional Application 60/180,937, filed on Feb. 8, 2000, entitled “Unwanted Email Filtering System”, all by the same inventor.
FIELD OF THE INVENTIONThis invention relates to a system for eliminating unwanted email, and particularly to one in which all email must be recognized as sent by an authorized sender in order to be accepted.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTIONUnwanted or unauthorized email is a significant bane for users on worldwide networks, such as the current public Internet. Once a person's email address becomes known in a network system, it can easily be replicated in computerized lists and passed on electronically to an unlimited number of parties who have not been authorized or invited to send email to the user. A user's electronic mailbox can become inundated with such unauthorized email. Unauthorized or unwanted email is referred to generically in the industry by the term “spam”, although the term is not intended to be associated with or to disparage the popular canned meat product sold under the trademark “Spam” by Hormel Corp. The user may have an email address with a commercial information service provider (ISP) service which limits the amount of email that can be accepted and/or stored or which charges the user by the volume received. The user may also waste a significant amount of time opening and reviewing such unwanted email. Unauthorized email may also be sent by unscrupulous persons who may enclose a virus or noxious software agent in the email which can infect the user's computer system, or which can be used as an unauthorized point of entry into a local network system that handles the user's email.
Most, if not all, of the current software to control the receipt of spam is based upon the use of identifying lists of known spam sources or senders (“spammers”). Such conventional spam control software functions on the basis of receiving all email as authorized unless a sender is identified as being on the exclusion list and the email can be filtered out. This approach is only as good as the identifying list and cannot guarantee that the user will not receive spam. Spammer lists require frequent updating and must be distributed in a timely manner to all subscribers to the spam control software or service. Sophisticated spammers frequently change their source Internet address, and can defeat attempts to keep exclusion lists current. They can also route the unwanted email through the Internet servers of other parties so as to disguise the source of the emails through innocuous or popularly recognized names. A user's email address may also become known to large numbers of individuals in public chat rooms or on public bulletin boards. Unwanted email sent by individuals are not tracked on spammer lists, because the sending of email by individuals is technically not spamming.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONAccordingly, it is a principal object of the present invention to provide a spam control system that cannot be defeated by spammers who frequently change their source addresses or disguise themselves by routing email through other servers, or by individuals who send email that are not invited or authorized by the user. It is a particular object of the invention that the system of the invention rejects all email as unauthorized unless the sender is recognized as being on the user's acceptance list.
In accordance with the present invention, a system for eliminating unauthorized email sent to a user on a network comprises:
(a) an email client for allowing the user to receive email sent on the network addressed to a unique email address of the user,
(b) an email-receiving server connected between the network and the email client for receiving email addressed to the unique email address of the user,
(c) an unauthorized-email rejection component having an authorized senders list (ASL) module which maintains email addresses of senders authorized to send email to the user, wherein the unauthorized-email rejection component is operable with the email-receiving server for intercepting and rejecting any incoming email addressed to the email address of the user.
In a preferred embodiment, the system's ASL module includes an ASL rules database for storing ASL rules lists of authorized sender addresses and associated processing rules for respective subscribers of the system, a spam processor module for processing the ASL rule list for matches, and an ASL manager for creating, maintaining, and updating the ASL rule lists. A redirector module rejects email based on the outcome of the spam processor module processing the sender's address against the ASL rule list. Email rejected by the redirector module is redirected to a web-based messaging (WBM) website and a message is sent notifying the sender to visit the WBM site and confirm that the sender is a legitimate sender of email to the intended recipient. If the sender logs on to confirm their status, the WBM component on the site executes an interaction procedure which can only be performed by a human, in order to ensure that the confirmation procedure is not performed by a mechanical program. The ASL manager maintains the ASL rule lists based upon sender address data collected from various sources and analyses of various email usage factors, including sent email, received email, contact lists maintained by the user, user preference inputs, third party programs, etc.
The invention also encompasses associated methods of performing the above functions, as well as related software components which enable these functions to be performed.
Other objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be described in further detail below, with reference to the following drawings:
In contrast to the known approaches of existing spam control methods of accepting all email unless listed on an exclusion list as unauthorized, the fundamental principle of the present invention is to reject all email unless the rules processing returns a favorable response. In this manner, it is possible to filter out email that comes from unrecognized spammers as well as individuals who send email that is uninvited by the user. Unlike the known email filtering systems, the present invention does not attempt to filter out the unwanted email after it has been accepted. Rather, it outright rejects the email at the earliest entry level by returning a server-level “no such user” error message to the device that is transmitting the sender's email. Thus, the invention operates on the premise that all email will be preprocessed according to pre-set rules before the validity of the recipient's (user) email address will even be accepted as correct. This provides an inherently powerful and 100% effective spam control solution in an environment where spammers can instantaneously change their source address or apparent identity and individuals in public areas can obtain email addresses of other users and send them unwanted email.
The following is a detailed description of one preferred embodiment of a system for implementing the invention concept. In this embodiment, the spam control system intelligently formulates the “authorized senders” rules list based upon user-defined actions previously stored in the email proxy preprocessor, an ongoing analysis of the user's email usage, such as to whom and with what frequency sent email is addressed to other users, and through the gathering of high-level user contact data, such as a user's known contacts and associates identified on other lists or files maintained by the user which indicate persons considered as authorized. The “authorized senders” rules list may also be updated and manipulated by the user at any time to add or remove authorized senders and/or associated processing rules. While this specific implementation is used, and certain components are provided and configured to be interoperable in the described ways, it is to be understood that the full scope of the invention is deemed to encompass many other suitable modifications and variations to the described guiding principles of the invention.
Conventional anti-spam control can be implemented with the SMTP Server and/or at the email client. Many ISPs implement an exclusion list of known spammers at the SMTP Server. In addition, they commonly allow a user to filter out unwanted email from certain senders known to the user. For example, the user's email client may have a filtering function that allows the user to input unwanted sender email addresses to the SMTP Server so that email received by the SMTP Server can be filtered out before being put into the user's Inbox. Further, independent software vendors sell sophisticated email handling programs that work with the user's email client. For example, some handling program have functions for categorizing received email into topical file folders, and email from unrecognized senders may be put into a “Miscellaneous” or “Unrecognized” file folder.
In
Referring to
- SPAMKAPU: An example of the spam control system of the invention.
- SUBSCRIBER: A person subscribing to an ISP email service that is using the spam control system of the invention.
- FRIEND: An email-sending source that is authorized by the spam control system to send email to the SUBSCRIBER.
- SPAMMER: An email-sending source that is not authorized to send email to the SUBSCRIBER, which is commonly understood to be an unknown or unauthorized party that is using a manual or computerized email list mailing program to send large volumes of emails repetitively through the Internet.
- UNKNOWN: An email sending source that has not yet been identified as either a SPAMMER or a CONTACT.
Email sent from the Internet (106) is sent to the email address of the ISP for the SUBSCRIBER, referred to in block 201 as the SpamKapu Email Address (SKE). Received email must first pass through the skProxy preprocessor 202. The skProxy preprocessor examines the “to:” email address against a table of proxy addresses and if there is a match appropriately processes the email before passing it to the Redirector 203. The Redirector 203 sends a request for validation for the email from the Spam Processor 204 which maintains the Spam Processing Database (SPDB) 205, including the Authorized Senders Rules List (ASL) 206. The SPDB Database and ASL Rules List are the heart of SPAMKAPU, as they contain the processing rules and lists of persons authorized to send email to the respective SUBSCRIBERS of the system. The Spam Processor 204 sends a response, either that the sender's address on the email is not authorized on the ASL List, i.e., is a SPAMMER, or is authorized on the ASL rules list, i.e., is a FRIEND, or is not present at all on the ASL rules list, i.e. is a UNKNOWN. If the response is that it is a SPAMMER, the Redirector 203 rejects the email, as shown at block 207, such as by sending a standard error message to the sending server that the user as addressed does not exist.
As a refinement to the system, a Web-Based Messenger (WBM) process at block 208 may be set up to provide a corrective procedure in the event that the rejected email is from someone not yet listed on the ASL list and therefore an UNKNOWN. The unauthorized email may actually be from a person who has not been previously processed in the anti-spam system but who has a legitimate reason to reach the SUBSCRIBER. The WBM process 208 is set up as part of the spam control system to which the rejected email is redirected. The WBM process then sends an email to the email sender, who is now treated as an UNKNOWN. For example, the email message may read:
-
- “An email sent by you to SUBSCRIBER's address was redirected to this site as being sent from an unrecognized sender address which may be a source of spam email. If you would like to confirm yourself as a person with legitimate reason to reach the SUBSCRIBER, please visit the WBM site and confirm your status as a FRIEND.”
The WBM may have a separate web site address for interactions with UNKNOWNS. When an UNKNOWN receives the error response email, if they are a legitimate FRIEND for the SUBSCRIBER, they may elect to go to the WBM site to confirm their status as a legitimate FRIEND. If done before the expiration date, the WBM process will add an entry into the ASL rules list so that the now validated FRIEND may re-send the previous email and send future emails without error at shown in block 209. If the SUSPECT does not respond, this fact is also sent to the ASL Manager for further analysis. The extra confirmation step effectively eliminates SPAMMERS since they use automated programs to send out batch email and typically will not take human response time to log on to the WBM site to confirm their legitimate status.
If the Spam Processor sends a validation response that the sender is a FRIEND, then the Redirector 203 passes the email to the designated existing SMTP server 211 which processes the email accordance with existing Internet standards (RFC821). The user can now collect their email their standard Inbox 212 (using standard Internet protocols such as POP3 or IMAP4) through the user email client 101 on their computer. Their email is 100% spam-free, since all email from senders not recognized by the system as authorized has been rejected.
Users send email composed on and sent from the email client 101 via standard SMTP protocols to the ISP's email server. The ISP's SMTP server is responsible for providing users with email addresses within the system, and sending users' email to the recipients' email addresses on the Internet 103. In the SPAMKAPU invention system, an SMTP Send Manager 214 is provided to intervene in the usual send email process. The SMTP Send Manager 212 copies header information from all outgoing email and sends the data to the ASL Manager 213, then sends the email on to the ISP's existing SMTP server which in-turn sends the mail to its intended destination as shown in block 215. The ASL Manager 213 performs one of the key functions in the invention system. It analyzes the header data from sent email and data from other data sources 216 maintained by the ISP email server system, such as email logs and user-supplied lists. On the basis of its analysis routines (to be described in further detail below), the ASL Manager 211 checks, populates, and updates the SPDB Database and ASL Rule List with the email addresses and other data on senders authorized to send email to the SUBSCRIBERS. The SPAMKAPU system also includes User Maintenance Modules (UMM) 217 which allows the user to interact with and upload user information to SPAMKAPU for further customization of SPAMKAPU's email operations for the user.
Referring to
Referring to
In
In
Referring to
In
In
The ASL Scheduler Processor 802 is used to process tasks on a scheduled basis for various analysis and maintenance functions. This allows a very rich examination of the SUBSCRIBER's ASL list, mail log, and other data files, to continually refine the “authorized senders” list for accuracy and relevance. For example, the processor functions can include: an ASL Mail Log Analyzer for analyzing the ASL Mail Log database 804 of the SUBSCRIBER's received and sent emails; an Expiration Date Analyzer for setting and enforcing expiration dates for authorized senders to be re-authorized; a Low Volume Analyzer for downgrading or eliminating the authorization status of senders with whom the SUBSCRIBER communicates very infrequently; a High Volume Analyzer for upgrading or permanently marking the authorization status of senders with whom the SUBSCRIBER communicates very frequently; a Fuzzy Logic Analyzer for making qualitative decisions as to FRIEND or SPAMMER status based on a variety of factors; and other Third Party Analyzers for analyzing data generated by third party plug-ins and programs to refine the ASL list.
The ASL Rules Processor 806 contains the rules (in an ASL Manager Rules Database 803) that determine how to add, update or modify the ASL Lists maintained in the SPDB Database 205. The Rules Processor can have an architecture that readily accepts and interoperates with third party databases 805 and applications programs 807 in order to harness the collective power of developers in the network communications industry to continually improve and extend the SPAMKAPU system's feature set. The ultimate result of this architecture is to enable the creation of a very richly detailed ASL database which goes beyond even the total elimination of spam email into other or future needs of users for the dynamic and intelligent handling of email.
In
The specific programming syntax or execution logic of the ASL Manager rules processing may be varied in any suitable manner depending on the developer of the Spam Processor application. The following examples of some options for ASL Manager actions illustrate a wide range of approaches that may be used:
MATCHING AN EMAIL ADDRESS OR ADDRESS PATTERN:
(a) Default: exact match
(b) A specific email address: john@company.com
(c) UNIX Standard wildcard matching:
-
- *.microsoft.com=anything from “Microsoft.com”
- *microsoft*=anything with microsoft in it
- *.mil=any email from the military
(d) Matching any known “blackhole list” by using a % BLACKHOLE % symbol.
USING A CONDITIONAL AND PARAMETERS TO EXECUTE IF THE MATCH IS TRUE
USING A SECONDARY ACTION AND PARAMETERS TO PERFORM IF THE CONDITIONAL IS TRUE.
USING THE LAST DATE THE SUBSCRIBER SENT EMAIL TO THIS ADDRESS
USING THE LAST DATE THIS ADDRESS SENT EMAIL TO THE SUBSCRIBER
USING DATE THE RECORD WAS CREATED
EXAMPLES OF CONDITIONALS THAT CAN BE USED:
(a) Expiration dates: use a given address until Feb. 12, 2004
(b) Date ranges: use a given address from Apr. 1, 2004 to May 2, 2004
(c) Specific recurring times: first week of every month but no other time, e.g., newsletter@magazine.com acceptable during 1st week of each month.
(d) A link to external software designed to allow for additional user-defined criteria;
-
- this allows for third party applications
EXAMPLES OF MESSAGES THAT MAY BE INVOKED BY A GIVEN SECONDARY ACTION
(a) Standard “error”
(b) Custom with variable substitution in the message body, e.g.:
-
- % username % is substituted with the sender's email address
- % subid % is the ID code of the subscriber
- % date % is today's date
(c) “hello % username % you have been identified as spam, go to http://www.spamkapu.com/subscriber=% subid % and if you're really human we'll let you in.
(d) Custom text: “All email addresses from America Online are unconditionally rejected”
(e) Send a given message in the error response.
(f) Send a given message as an email.
(g) Open a file and email its contents
(h) Open a file and send its contents as an error reponse.
(i) Set the sender's status to SPAMMER or FRIEND
(j) Create a unique ID that will expire after a short time period (24-48 hrs). This id can be used by the SUSPECT to access the WBM and become a CONTACT.
(l) Link and execute external software designed to allow for additional user-defined actions; this allows for third party applications.
In
In the second phase shown in
Control is then passed to
If the maximum instantiations has been reached as determined by step 1013, SkProxy does not instantiate any further proxy entries and passes control to step 1010, returning to the Redirector. The net effect of disallowing further instantiations will be that no ASL rules will be entered and since it is highly likely that no ASL rules already exist with this sender's email address, the sender's email will most likely be rejected by the Redirector.
The following explains the sample data presented in
The following explains the sample data presented in
Once a proxy email address has been instantiated, it can only be used for the specific FROM domain or email address that it was instantiated for. For example, if an end-user submitted their domain-wide proxy email address for the purpose of an online order, and that email address was subsequently instantiated, the proxy email address cannot be successfully used by a sender that does not use the same domain name as the online order vendor.
By defining the maximum amount of senders that may use a given proxy address, the end-user can effectively create “private email networks” whereby the proxy email address will work for collection of individuals or organizations but does not work for others.
Existing standard email configurations as shown in
The firewall configuration is not intended to replace any existing firewall devices operating on the network. For network configuration purposes, the SpamKapu email firewall replaces the existing email server that processes external incoming email and transmits email addressed to external servers. The ideal configuration of the SpamKapu firewall is to be considered a hardware component alongside the existing email servers and in conjunction with any other existing firewall devices.
The optimal commercialization of the SpamKapu server will be as a network appliance. This can be packaged as a complete hardware and software solution or the software can be installed on dedicated hardware by knowledgeable technicians. The key envisioned commercial applications include A) Commercial ISPs that use the SpamKapu technology to provide spam elimination services to their clients. B) Network providers that offer both spam elimination and reduced bandwidth usage.
In summary, the present invention provides a spam email rejection method which analyzes the sender address of incoming email and determines whether it is to be rejected before being accepted by an email-receiving server by returning a standard “no such user” error code or redirecting it elsewhere. This provides an advantage over existing anti-spam filtering systems which accept all email and attempts to filter out only those that have sender addresses recognized as those of known spammers. The invention employs an ASL module to capture authorized sender email addresses from the user's outgoing email or other sources in order to update the “authorized senders” (ASL) lists. The WBM procedure allows senders of rejected email to go to a separate website and register as valid senders after passing an interaction test that confirms that it is not being done by a mechanical program. The SkProxy procedure allows subscribers to use temporary proxy addresses for receiving email expected from unknown sources and instantiates senders as authorized upon receiving the expected email to the proxy addresses. The unauthorized-email rejection component of the system can be readily configured as a hardware or software appliance used in tandem with a conventional email server, email gateway, or firewall to an intranet, or as a software extension to an existing firewall system.
It is understood that many other modifications and variations may be devised given the above description of the guiding principles of the invention. It is intended that all such modifications and variations be considered as within the spirit and scope of this invention, as defined in the following claims.
Claims
1-35. (canceled)
36. A system, comprising:
- one or more hardware processors and one or more computer memories together providing:
- an email proxy pre-processing module that is configured to allow designation of a proxy email address that is associated with a primary email address but distinct from the primary email address to receive email from email addresses not on an authorized senders list, wherein the authorized senders list maintains email addresses authorized to have emails sent to the primary email address received by the primary email address, wherein, upon receiving incoming email addressed to the proxy email address from an email address not on the authorized senders list, the email proxy pre-processing module is further configured to accept the email and to add the email address from which the incoming email was received to the authorized senders list.
37. The system of claim 36 further comprising an unauthorized-email rejection component that is configured to be positioned in the flow of incoming email upstream from an email-receiving server, such as to intercept unauthorized email and to prevent unauthorized email from reaching the email-receiving server.
38. The system of claim 37, further comprising a web-based messaging (WBM) component configured to send a message to an email address from which rejected email is received inviting to validate the email address from which rejected email is received as an authorized' sending email address.
39. The system of claim 38, wherein the WBM component is further configured to specify a predetermined time period for the email address from which rejected email is received to be validated as an authorized sending email address.
40. The system of claim 38, wherein the WBM component is further configured to require an interaction procedure to be passed to show that a mechanical program is not seeking to automatically validate the email address from which rejected email is received.
41. The system of claim 40, wherein the interaction procedure includes a display of a graphic image of a word or object, and an input to enter in a text word in response to the graphic image, whereby the system can confirm that the interaction procedure is not being performed by a mechanical program.
42. The system of claim 36 further comprising an unauthorized-email rejection component having an authorized senders list (ASL) module configured to maintain email addresses authorized to have email sent to the primary email address received by the primary email address, wherein the unauthorized-email rejection component is configured to operate with an email-receiving server to intercept and reject any email addressed to the primary email address received from an email address not on the authorized senders list, wherein the unauthorized-email rejection component is further configured to, upon the ASL module determining that incoming email is received from an email address that is not on the authorized senders list, reject the incoming email with an industry standard “no such user” error message.
43. The system of claim 36 further comprising an unauthorized-email rejection component that is configured to, in response to the email proxy pre-processing module receiving incoming email addressed to the proxy email address from an email address not on the authorized senders list, add to the authorized senders list an entry indicating all email addresses of the same domain as the email address from which the incoming email is received.
44. The system of claim 36, wherein the email proxy pre-processing module includes a control parameter configured to limit usage of the proxy email address,to terminate acceptance of email sent to the proxy email address from email addresses not on the authorized senders list, and to prevent addition to the authorized senders list.
45. The system of claim 44, wherein the control parameter is a maximum number of different email addresses from which email sent to the proxy email address will be accepted.
46. The system of claim 44, wherein the control parameter is a maximum period of time after the most recent email from an email address not on the authorized senders list was accepted that the next email from an email address not on the authorized senders list may be accepted.
47. A method, comprising:
- designating a proxy address that is associated with a primary address but distinct from the primary address to receive electronic messages from other addresses not on an authorized senders list, wherein the authorized senders list maintains addresses authorized to have electronic messages sent to the primary address received by the primary address,
- upon receiving an incoming electronic message addressed to the proxy address from an address not on the authorized senders list, accepting the incoming electronic message; and adding the address from which the incoming electronic message was received to the authorized senders list.
48. The method of claim 47 further comprising, upon receiving an incoming electronic message addressed to the proxy address from an address not on the authorized senders list, adding to the authorized senders list an entry indicating all addresses of the same domain as the address from which the incoming electronic message is received.
49. The method of claim 47 further comprising, setting a control parameter for limiting usage of the proxy address and terminating acceptance of electronic messages sent to the proxy address from addresses not on the authorized senders list and preventing addition to the authorized senders list.
50. The method of claim 49, wherein the control parameter is a maximum number of different addresses not on the authorized senders list from which electronic message sent to the proxy address will be accepted.
51. The method of claim 49, wherein the control parameter is a maximum period of time after the most recent electronic message from an address not on the authorized senders list was accepted that the next electronic message from an address not on the authorized senders list may be accepted.
52. A computer-readable storage device having instructions stored thereon, the instructions comprising:
- instructions to designate a proxy email address that is associated with a primary email address but distinct from the primary email address to receive email from email addresses not on an authorized senders list, wherein the authorized senders list maintains email addresses authorized to have email sent to the primary email address received by the primary email address,
- instructions to, upon receiving incoming email addressed to the proxy email address from an email address not on the authorized senders list, accept the incoming email; and add the email address from which the incoming email was received to the authorized senders list.
53. The computer-readable storage device of claim 52 further comprising instructions to establish a control parameter for limiting usage of the proxy email address and terminating acceptance of email sent to the proxy email address from email addresses not on the authorized senders list and preventing addition to the authorized senders list
54. One or more computer memories collectively storing a proxy email address data structure, the data structure comprising a plurality of entries, each entry comprising: wherein the contents of the data structure may be used to forward a message addressed to the proxy email address indicated by a distinguished entry received from an uninstantiated sending email address to the primary email address indicated by the distinguished entry only if the maximum number of sending email addresses that may be instantiated indicated by the distinguished entry exceeds the total number of instantiated sending email addresses indicated by the distinguished entry.
- information indicating a primary email address;
- information indicating a proxy email address associated with the indicated primary email address that is distinct from the indicated primary email address;
- information indicating a maximum number of sending email addresses that may be instantiated for the indicated proxy email address, wherein the maximum number of sending email addresses is at least two; and
- information indicating the total number of sending email addresses that have been instantiated for the indicated proxy email address,
55. The computer memories of claim 54 wherein at least one entry including the distinguished entry further comprises: wherein that the contents of the data structure may be used to forward a message addressed to the proxy email address indicated by a distinguished entry received from a presently-unknown sending email address to the primary email address indicated by the distinguished entry only if both (a) the maximum number of sending email addresses that may be instantiated indicated by the distinguished entry exceeds the total number of instantiated sending email addresses indicated by the distinguished entry, and (b) the current date is earlier than a date obtained by adding the relative expiration period length indicated by the distinguished entry to the most recent date on which a sending email address was instantiated indicated by the distinguished entry.
- information indicating a relative expiration period length for the entry; and
- information indicating the most recent date on which a sending email address was instantiated for the indicated proxy email address,
Type: Application
Filed: Sep 14, 2010
Publication Date: Apr 7, 2011
Inventor: Peter L. Katsikas (Honolulu, HI)
Application Number: 12/882,130
International Classification: G06F 21/00 (20060101); G06F 15/16 (20060101);