Abstract:
A system and method for ensuring an electronic communication sent by a user to one or more recipients is not sent to one or more inappropriate recipients. The system and method controls, monitors, detects and prevents sending of electronic communications to an unintended recipient or recipients. The system and method also controls, monitors, detects and ensures electronic communications are sent to all intended recipients. Based on parameters that identify conditions for an inappropriate recipient, the system and method compares each recipient of an electronic communication with the parameters and stops the sending if an inappropriate recipient exists. A notification is then provided identifying each inappropriate recipient and the parameters that were triggered. Mechanism to override the stopping of the electronic communication may be provided.

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0001]    The present invention relates to a system of controlling the appropriate recipients for receiving digital information. In particular, a system that allows a user to configure it to ensure distribution of digital information via electronic communications to non-conflicting recipients and/or to a comprehensive list of recipients in a group. 
       BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    Most communications among businesses and individuals now-a-days are transmission of digital information via electronic means, such as text messaging, emails, instant messaging, etc. With the increased use of electronic communications, there is an increased need for controlling and monitoring such use to avoid misdirection of communication. Oftentimes, electronic communication is sent to unintended recipients due to the address “auto-complete” feature of email, text or instant messaging programs. Other times, the sender simply inputs the wrong recipient&#39;s email address or phone number, and the wrong recipient thereby receives the electronic communication while the intended recipient does not. 
         [0003]    If an electronic communication is sent to a wrong recipient, sometimes it may be inconsequential and one can ask the unintended recipient to ignore the electronic communication. This may not be possible if the sender does not realize the communication was sent to the wrong recipient or the unintended recipient does not notify the sender. Even though it is common practice to use a notice within an electronic communication requesting the recipient to delete and/or return the message if the recipient is not the intended recipient, not all unintended recipients do so. If the sender simply forgets to include an intended recipient in the list of recipients of a group, then it would be impossible to correct such a mistake. 
         [0004]    If a recipient has a conflicting interest with the sender or one or more of the intended recipients of the communication and/or the communication contains sensitive or privileged information, then there may be a more dire consequence for misdirected electronic communication. Examples of conflicting parties are: an insurer and the insured; competing businesses; management and staff; parties involved in medical care who have differing interests; and opposing parties in a lawsuit. Sensitive information may contain privileged information, trade secrets, privacy data, confidential business, and confidential financial information. 
         [0005]    Known prior art method prevents an electronic communication from ever being sent to an identified recipient by blocking the particular recipient in a sender&#39;s electronic communication program. However, this is not a sufficient or proper means to prevent error when it would be necessary to send such communication in certain instances because it prevents all electronic communications from being sent to such recipient. 
         [0006]    Therefore, there is a need to provide a system and method of controlling, monitoring, detecting and preventing sending of electronic communications to a conflicting recipient or recipients or to one or more recipients that become unintended recipients as a result of the inclusion of another recipient in the list of recipients in the group. There is also a need to provide a system and method of controlling, monitoring, detecting, and preventing electronic communications from not being sent to an intended recipient. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0007]    The present invention provides a system for controlling, monitoring, detecting and preventing sending of electronic communications to an unintended recipient or recipients. The present invention also provides a system for controlling, monitoring, detecting and ensuring electronic communications are sent to all intended recipients. 
         [0008]    The system may be set up to perform the following functions: 
         [0009]    1. Never send an electronic communication to a particular recipient. 
         [0010]    2. Never send an electronic communication to a recipient with a particular second level domain name. 
         [0011]    3. Never send an electronic communication to a particular recipient if another recipient is also on the list of recipients. 
         [0012]    4. Never send an electronic communication to a recipient unless another particular recipient is also on the list of recipients. 
         [0013]    5. Never send an electronic communication to recipients with conflicting second level domain names. 
         [0014]    6. Delete an electronic communication to a particular recipient or recipients from the system after it is sent. 
         [0015]    7. Delete an electronic communication to a recipient or recipients having a particular second level domain name from the system after it is sent. 
         [0016]    8. Send an electronic communication to a particular recipient only when it contains a single recipient. 
         [0017]    The system and method of the present invention controls, monitors, detects and prevents distribution of electronic communications to conflicting recipient(s) when such electronic communication is being sent to one or more recipients. Conflicting recipients may be competitors, an insurer and the insured, management and staff, parties involved in medical care who have differing interests, opposing parties in a lawsuit, etc. Conflicting recipients may be identified based on various parameters, such as all or a portion of an email address, all or a portion of a phone number, all or a portion of other recipient identifying (or addressing) mechanism, or other parameters. 
         [0018]    Once the conflicting recipient(s) is identified by the system based on certain parameters, the system prevents the electronic communication from being sent and provides a notice to the sender, administrator, supervisor and/or manager. If the sender has authorization, he/she is given the option to either allow the electronic communication to go through (override), or reject the electronic communication and correct the conflict. A sender who does not have authorization to override a conflict may require actions to be taken by an administrator, supervisor or manager. 
         [0019]    The system and method of the present invention also controls, monitors, detects and prevents electronic communications from being sent if there is a missing intended recipient when such electronic communication is being sent to one or more recipients of a group. A missing recipient may be identified based on various parameters, such as all or a portion of an email address, all or a portion of a phone number, all or a portion of other recipient identifying (or addressing) mechanism, or other parameters. 
         [0020]    Once the missing intended recipient is identified by the system, the system can prevent the electronic communication from being sent. A notice is provided to the sender, administrator, supervisor and/or manager, and the sender may take affirmative action to allow the electronic communication to go through by manually overriding such restriction or correct the problem by adding the missing intended recipient. If the sender has no authority to override, actions will have to be taken by the administrator, supervisor and/or manager. 
         [0021]    The system and method of the present invention also controls, monitors, detects, and performs certain action to an electronic communication upon sending to a certain recipient. 
         [0022]    The system allows a user to create one or more databases based on various parameters to identify conflicting and missing intended recipient relationships, identify blocked recipients and identify when certain actions is required. Instead of using databases, such parameters may also be stored in persistent storage and non-database files. The system may be implemented on a sender&#39;s end (e.g. within a sender&#39;s email program) or an intermediary (e.g. a central server). The system at a central server may be cloud-based or as a software-as-a service and implemented to monitor multiple devices or platforms of a user (e.g. mobile and desktop devices). The system and method can be individually set up (e.g. within a user&#39;s smart phone or email program on a personal computing device) and/or as an enterprise-wise set up (e.g. at a central server by an administrator). The system and method may be an independent program or incorporated as part of a firewall solution, anti-virus solution or network security and privacy compliance solution such as Appriver, Appriver&#39;s Mail Extreme package, Microsoft® Forefront, etc. Reports can be generated for a user or for an administrator, supervisor or manager. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0023]    Preferred embodiments of the present invention have been chosen for purposes of illustration and description and are shown in the accompanying drawings forming a part of the specification wherein: 
           [0024]      FIG. 1  shows a general application process of the present invention. 
           [0025]      FIG. 2  shows a recipient&#39;s email conflict process of the present invention. 
           [0026]      FIG. 3  shows a recipient&#39;s second-level domain name conflict process of the present invention. 
           [0027]      FIG. 4  shows a recipient&#39;s email block process of the present invention. 
           [0028]      FIG. 5  shows a recipient&#39;s second-level domain name block process of the present invention. 
           [0029]      FIG. 6  shows a missing intended recipient process of the present invention. 
           [0030]      FIG. 7  shows a recipient&#39;s email address as being identified with the action of deleting the electronic communication after it is sent. 
           [0031]      FIG. 8  shows a centralized application process of the present invention. 
           [0032]      FIG. 9  shows a database structure of the system of the present invention using relational data. 
           [0033]      FIG. 10  shows a database structure of the system of the present invention using a flat file database. 
           [0034]      FIG. 11  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention as a plug-in of Microsoft® Outlook. 
           [0035]      FIG. 12  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates the main configuration screen. 
           [0036]      FIG. 13  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates a drop down menu of various rules available for configuration. 
           [0037]      FIG. 14  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates the configuration for conflicting recipients. 
           [0038]      FIG. 15  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates another rule available for configuration. 
           [0039]      FIG. 16  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates the search feature. 
           [0040]      FIG. 17  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates the notice to the user of a block and the option to override. 
           [0041]      FIG. 18  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates the notice to the user of multiple rules being violated/triggered and the option to override. 
           [0042]      FIG. 19  is a screen print of a computer monitor display by the system of the present invention and illustrates the editing of a configuration for blocking a recipient. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS 
       [0043]    What the System does: 
         [0044]    The recipient control system of the present invention operates under three main categories: Conflicting Recipient(s), Missing Intended Recipient(s), and Action List. The system provides controlling, monitoring, detecting and taking certain action with respect to electronic communications under these categories. 
         [0045]    Conflicting Recipient: 
         [0046]    The recipient control system prevents the sending of digital information via electronic communication to a conflicting recipient or recipients. An individual recipient may be in conflict with the user/sender that requires a block; or one or more recipients may be conflicting vis-à-vis one or more of the other recipients requiring a block. An electronic communication to one or more conflicting recipients is blocked, yet the user may permit (if overriding is allowed) the electronic communication to be sent to one or more of the recipients. When a sender sends electronic communication to one or more recipients, the system examines and detects whether any one in the group of recipients is a prohibited recipient based on the identity of one or more of the other recipients based on predetermined parameters. If the system does not detect a conflict for any recipient or combination of recipients in the electronic communication, then the electronic communication is sent. Otherwise, the electronic communication is not sent. 
         [0047]    Identifying Conflict Based on a Portion of a Phone Number: 
         [0048]    Individuals from the same company or office usually have the same first three or four digits of their seven digit phone numbers (or equivalently, first seven or eight digits of their ten digit phone numbers). It is possible to identify conflicting recipients with parameters based on the area code and the Central Office (exchange) code of a phone number, which comprises the first three digits of a seven digit phone number (or equivalently, first seven digits of a ten digit phone number) under the North American Numbering Plan for telephone numbers. The fourth digit (or equivalently, the eighth digit) may be another parameter for consideration in identifying conflict to prevent over-inclusiveness. For example, everyone working at Company A has phone numbers that begin with 212-368-9xxx; everyone working at Company B, a competing business, may have phone numbers that begin with 201-555-8xxx. Similarly, an international phone number containing more digits or other numbering plans can be adapted or used to identify conflicting recipients. The countries code prefixes can also be used to identify conflicting recipients (e.g. no electronic communication to phone numbers that begin with the country code 98 for Iran). 
         [0049]    Identifying Conflict Based on a Portion of an Email Address: 
         [0050]    Individuals from the same company usually have email addresses with the same second level domain name. It is possible to identify conflicting recipients based on the second level domain name and identifying competing second level domain name. For example, anyrecipient@company1.com may be identified as being in conflict with anyrecipient@company2.com because Company 1 and Company 2 are competing businesses. The parameters may be set for *@company1.com being in conflict with *@company2.com with * being a wildcard string of characters (or they can be identified as *company1* and *company2* to include all top level domains of the second level domain, or other variations known to one skilled in the art). Another example, company3usa.com and company3japan.com are sister or affiliated companies, but either or both may be considered conflicting with either or both of a competitor&#39;s addresses, such as company4usa.com and/or company4japan.com for purposes of the system. The parameters for this example may be set for *@company3*.com and *@company4*.com as a conflicting pair. Another example, anyrecipient@board.company1.com as email addresses of board members may be identified as being in conflict with anyrecipient@company1.com (i.e. *@board.company1.com and *@company1.com as a conflicting pair). In the foregoing example, board members do not want their communications to go to non-board members. 
         [0051]    Another example of the use of the present invention is when the parameter is set so that a sender is restricted to sending internal electronic communication within a company only, such as to anyrecipient@company4.com (i.e. only *@company4.com are non-conflicting). If such a sender includes in his distribution list of recipients an email address having a different second level domain name, then such electronic communication will not be sent. Similarly, if the sender is restricted to sending internal electronic communication only to his managers, the parameter may be set based on the sub-domain name such as anyrecipient@manager.company4.com (i.e. *@manager.company4.com). 
         [0052]    Another example of identifying conflicting recipient based a portion of the email address is to set the parameters based on a country code top level domain name. For example, if a user is restricted from sending any electronic communication to Iran, the parameters may be set to anyrecipient@anydomain.ir (i.e. *.ir). The country code second level domain name can also be the parameters for identifying a conflict, such as anyrecipient@anydomain.gov.ir (i.e. *gov.ir) to block electronic communications from being sent to an Iranian governmental entity. 
         [0053]    Identifying Conflict Based on Other Parameters of a Recipient&#39;s Contact Information: 
         [0054]    Other parameters in a recipient&#39;s contact information, such as company name, title, position, etc. may also be used to identify conflicting recipients. For example, parameters may be set such that an electronic communication being sent to management of a company will be restricted from being sent to administrative staff of the company, other workers, non-managers, unionized workers, etc. For example, if Andy&#39;s contact information includes his title as “Manager,” and Beatrice&#39;s contact information includes her title as “Staff-Secretary,” a user may set up the parameter for a conflicting pair such that any electronic communication being sent to a recipient with the title “Manager” (i.e. Andy) cannot also be sent to a recipient with the title “Staff*” (i.e. Beatrice). 
         [0055]    As another example, if Uncle Bob and Aunt Mary are estranged or otherwise do not speak with each other, and do not want to have anything to do with each other, a sender can set the parameter in Uncle Bob&#39;s contact information identifying Aunt Mary as a conflict, or vice versa. In this situation, if a sender tries to send an electronic communication to multiple recipients that include Uncle Bob and Aunt Mary, the system will notify the sender of such conflict and will not send the electronic communication out. 
         [0056]    Conflict Identified: 
         [0057]    Once all parameters are checked, if any conflict is identified, the system prevents the electronic communication from being sent. The sender is notified of such blocking and the rules/reasons for such blocking. The sender may be provided with one or more of the following options: 
         [0058]    1. Delete the electronic communication; 
         [0059]    2. Automatically or manually remove certain recipients and re-send the electronic communication; 
         [0060]    3. Override the block and send the electronic communication as it if the sender has authority to override; or 
         [0061]    4. If the sender does not have authority to override a block, then the user will await authorization from a supervisor, manager, etc. to approve the override. 
         [0062]    Missing Intended Recipient: 
         [0063]    The recipient control system prevents the sending of digital information via electronic communication to multiple recipients when an intended recipient may be missing. Two recipients may be a group such that electronic communication sent to one must include the other and vice versa. A group can also include more than two recipients. When a sender sends electronic communication to multiple recipients, the system examines and detects whether any recipient is missing from a group based on predetermined parameters. If the system does not detect a missing recipient in the electronic communication, then the electronic communication is sent. Otherwise, the electronic communication is not sent. 
         [0064]    Identify Missing Intended Recipient Based on a Portion of an Email Address: 
         [0065]    Individuals from the same company usually have email addresses with the same second level domain name. It is possible to identify missing intended recipients based on the second level domain name. For example, when a user sends an email to recipient1@company1.com, the user is required to send it to all other recipients in company1, such as anyrecipient@company1.com. Therefore, anyrecipient@company1.com is considered a group for recipient1@company1.com. The parameters may be set such the group for recipient1@company1.com is *@company1.com with * being a wildcard string of characters (or it can be identified as *company1*, to include all top level domains of the second level domain, or other variations known to one skilled in the art). 
         [0066]    Individuals within the same company may have email addresses having different sub-domains. It is possible to identify missing intended recipients based on the sub-domain. For example, when a user sends an email to a board member of a company, member1@board.company1.com, the user is required to send it to all board members, such as anymember@board.company1.com (i.e. *@board.company1.com). This does not require tying in to a particular email address and by reviewing the sub-domain, it would be sufficient to cover all members on the board, whether specifically identified or not or later added. 
         [0067]    Identify Missing Intended Recipient Based on Other Parameters of a Recipient&#39;s Contact Information: 
         [0068]    Other parameters in a recipient&#39;s contact information, such as company name, title, position, etc. may also be used to identify missing intended recipients. For examples, an electronic communication being sent to management of a company must also include the corporate attorney; an electronic communication being sent to a husband/wife must also include the spouse; an electronic communication being sent to the court or judge must also include opposing counsel. For example, if Andy&#39;s contact information includes his title as “Manager,” and Casey&#39;s contact information includes his title as “Attorney,” a user may set up the parameter for a group that any electronic communication being sent to a recipient with the title “Manager” (i.e. Andy) must also include all recipients with the title “Attorney” (i.e. Casey). 
         [0069]    As another example, if an insured requests the insurance company to copy the insured&#39;s attorney with all communications, the insurance company may set the parameters in connection with the insured&#39;s contact information that the insured&#39;s attorney is to be included. In this case, if a sender tries to send an electronic communication to the insured and the insured&#39;s attorney is not on the distribution list of recipients, the electronic communication will not be sent out. In this example, a user may set up the parameter for a group that any electronic communication being sent to the insured, perhaps identified in the user&#39;s address book as “Insured0001,” must also include the insured&#39;s attorney, perhaps identified in the user&#39;s address book as “Attorney for Insured0001” by creating a group of recipients as *insured0001*. 
         [0070]    Missing Intended Recipient Identified: 
         [0071]    Once a missing intended recipient is identified, the system prevents the electronic communication from being sent. The sender is notified of such blocking and the reasons for not sending the electronic communication out. The sender may be provided with one or more of the following options: 
         [0072]    1. Delete the electronic communication; 
         [0073]    2. Automatically or manually add the missing intended recipients and re-send the electronic communication; 
         [0074]    3. Override the block and send the electronic communication as is if the sender has authority to override; or 
         [0075]    4. If the sender does not have authority to override a block, then the user will await authorization from a supervisor, manager, etc. to approve the override. 
         [0076]    Databases for Identifying Conflicting and Missing Intended Recipient Relationship: 
         [0077]    The system identifies conflicting and missing intended recipient relationships based on parameters set up by a user and/or a system administrator. The system provides an interface for the user and/or system administrator to input such parameters. Such parameters are saved and stored by the system in a database file, persistent storage or other media known to one skilled in the art. 
         [0078]      FIG. 9  illustrates the use of relational data with two databases  910  and  920  for storing such parameters. Database  910  lists the type of rules “RuleType”  911  available in the system, such as conflicting recipient, conflicting recipients, blocking recipient, group, etc. Each rule may be assigned an identification number “ID”  912  and given a name “RuleName”  914  to facilitate access by the system and the user. Database  920  is for the “RuleName” “Conflicts” for conflicting recipients. A user input the information for the parameters, such as “Parameter1”  922  and “Parameter2”  924 . Database  920  can include multiple sets of “Conflicts” with each set of conflicting recipients assigned an identification number “ID”  926  and given a reference “Rule TypeId”  928 . As known by one skilled in the art, multiple relational databases will be used to accommodate all the parameters set up by the user and/or system administrator. 
         [0079]      FIG. 10  illustrates the use of a flat file database  930  wherein the first column contains an unique identification number “ID”  932  assigned to each set of parameters. The second column contains the relevant rules “RuleType”  934  such as “Recipient Conflict”  936  and “Domain Conflict”  938 . The third, fourth, and Nth columns contain parameters input by the user and/or system administrator for, respectively, “Parameter1”  940 , “Parameter2”  942 , . . . “ParameterN”. As shown in  FIG. 10 , under rule ID #1, todd@gatekeepersolutionsinc.com and larry@gatekeepersolutionsinc.com are identified as a conflicting pair of recipients such that the system prevents an electronic communication to both Todd and Larry from being sent. Under rule ID #2, yahoo.com is identified as a domain conflict such that the system prevents electronic communications from being sent to any email address with the yahoo.com domain such as *@yahoo.com. The file database  930  may take the form of a Microsoft® Excel spreadsheet, an xml file, a simple database table, or other forms known to one skilled in the art. 
         [0080]    The system may be set up to perform one or more of the following functions: 
         [0081]    1. may only send if a recipient is listed in the system, which may be created or imported from a user&#39;s address book or contact list or set up by a system administrator. 
         [0082]    2. may not send if a recipient is not listed in the system. 
         [0083]    3. may not send if a recipient is identified as being blocked (i.e. individual recipient conflict). 
         [0084]    4. may only send if a recipient&#39;s email address has a specific second level domain name that is listed in the system. 
         [0085]    5. may not send if a recipient&#39;s email address has a specific second level domain name that is listed in the system. 
         [0086]    6. may not send if a recipient&#39;s email address has a specific second level domain name that conflicts with another specific second level domain name. 
         [0087]    7. may only send if a recipient&#39;s relationship list of required recipients (i.e. group) are all included in the distribution list of recipients. 
         [0088]    8. may not send if a recipient&#39;s relationship list of required recipients (i.e. group) are not all included in the distribution list of recipients. 
         [0089]    9. if the distribution list of recipients includes a recipient with an email address having a specific second level domain name, the electronic communication may only be sent if the distribution list of recipients includes all other email addresses with the same second level domain name in the system. 
         [0090]    10. if the distribution list of recipients includes a recipient with an email address having a specific second level domain name, the electronic communication may only be sent if the distribution list of recipients includes all other email addresses with a particular, different, second level domain name in the system. 
         [0091]    11. if the distribution list of recipients includes a recipient with an email address having a specific sub-domain name and second-level domain name, the electronic communication may only be sent if the distribution list of recipients includes all other email addresses with the same sub-domain name and second-level domain name in the system. 
         [0092]    The above list of functions is non-exhaustive and many variations to the functions are contemplated by the system. 
         [0093]    Although the parameters for the system has been described above as requiring input or set up by a user or a system administrator, it is contemplated that the system can also be self-learning. For example, if two specific email addresses have been identified as conflicting pairs (e.g. amy@abc.com and bob@xyz.com), and after the user identifies a few (for example, 3) other conflicting pairs of email addresses having the same two corresponding second level domain names (e.g. casey@abc.com and danny@xyz.com; jack@abc.om and joe@xyz.com; and lily@abc.com and jill@xyz.com), the system automatically creates the second level domain name conflicting pairs for *@abc.com and *@xyz.com. Similarly, after a user overrides certain predetermined parameters for a rule a certain number of times, the system may automatically updated to remove the rule. 
         [0094]    Action List: 
         [0095]    The recipient control system takes certain actions when digital information is sent via electronic communication. When a sender sends electronic communication to a particular recipient, the system examines and detects whether any required action needs to be taken based on predetermined parameters. If the system detects any required action, a notification is provided to the user before or after sending. 
         [0096]    Deleting Electronic Communication after Sending: 
         [0097]    After an electronic communication is sent, a user sometimes does not want to keep a copy of the electronic communication. The system can be set up so that all electronic communications sent to one or more particular recipients would be deleted from the system after it is sent. Such electronic communication would not be kept in the “Sent” folder nor in the “Trash” folder. 
         [0098]    This feature is particularly useful for preserving law firms&#39; attorney-client privileged communication, especially when copies of such communication may reside in a third party&#39;s server or storage for an indefinite period of time. 
         [0099]    Implementation of the System: 
         [0100]    The recipient control system may be incorporated as a feature, or as an add-on, or as a plug-in to existing software or program. For example, the system can be an integrated part of, or added as an add-on to an electronic mail program such as Microsoft® Outlook, as a plug-in or add-on to existing features of an electronic mail program such as Microsoft® Outlook, as a plug-in to an internet browser for accessing web-based electronic mail, or as a cell phone texting feature. Although Microsoft® Outlook program is specifically mentioned herein, the system of the present invention may be added as an add-on or plug-in to other electronic mail programs such as Apple&#39;s mail program, Google® gmail, Yahoo!® mail, and other electronic mail programs, texting programs, instant messaging programs, social media distribution or blogging such as Twitter handles, Facebook accounts, now known or develop in the future. 
         [0101]    Implementation of the system is not limited to personal messaging client, but can also be implemented on a central server, such as a corporate server, or a third party intermediary in the cloud. The system in a central server may be cloud-based or as a software-as-a-service that serves multiple devices or platforms of one or more users. The system and method may be an independent program or incorporated as part of a firewall solution, anti-virus solution or network security and privacy compliance solution such as Appriver, Appriver&#39;s Mail Extreme package, Microsoft® Forefront, etc. Depending on how the system is implemented, the different parameters for identifying conflict or missing intended recipients and the action list may be set up by the sender or by an administrator. If the parameters are set up by an administrator, the administrator may restrict any overriding by the sender or leave it unrestricted to allow a sender to override the block. Alternatively, the overriding may require approval from an administrator and an automatically generated electronic communication may be sent to the administrator requesting such approval. 
         [0102]    The system may be installed onto a user&#39;s computer system via online download from a secured website, or via a physical compact disc. The system may reside in a user&#39;s personal computer or at a server remote from the user or in the cloud. If the system does not reside locally at the user&#39;s personal computer, then a secured interface may be installed in the user&#39;s personal computer to allow remote access of the system via the internet or local area network. 
         [0103]    Once the system is installed and available for use, the system allows the user to set up the parameters for the various rules available in the system. The parameters for each rule are stored in storage such as database(s), persistent storage or other types of files. 
         [0104]    In operation, the system applies to all outgoing electronic communication, even though a sender may be responding to an electronic communication that originates from a third party by replying “all.” The system checks all outgoing electronic communication against the parameters set up by the user, and provides a warning if a problem is detected or takes the necessary action based on those parameters. 
         [0105]    The system may monitor and log each occurrence when an outgoing electronic communication is blocked or an action is contemplated. Reports may also be generated for a user and/or an administrator identifying one or more of the following information: sender&#39;s information, date and time the electronic communication was sent, the complete list of recipients, reasons the electronic communication was not sent initially (e.g. identifying the particular rule being violated), actions taken by the sender after the notification, etc. Such report can aid in the user and/or administrator in modifying or fine tuning the parameters for better and more efficient performance of the system. 
       DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE FIGURES 
       [0106]    Referring to  FIG. 1 , which illustrates an example of the application process of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  100 . At  102 , the distribution list of recipients of the electronic communication is inspected based on the configuration, setting and/or database parameters at  104 . If a conflict or missing recipient is not identified at  106 , the electronic communication is sent out at  108 . If one or more conflicts or missing recipient is/are identified at  106 , the electronic communication is not sent out and a notification/warning is provided to the user at  110  that includes the full list of rules that would be violated by the communication. The user is provided with the option at  112  to override all rules that would be violated by the proposed communication and thereby send the communication at  108 , or the option to make selective changes to the proposed communication at  114  by either deleting certain recipients at  116 , and/or changing certain recipients at  116 . If the user neither overrides all rules nor makes selective changes, the user is given the option to either prevent the sending of the communication at  118  and to return to the email program at  120  in order to either delete the entire proposed electronic communication or make changes within the email program. If the user corrects the violation(s) or make changes at  116 , the electronic communication will again be subjected to the process via path  122  and be re-inspected at  106 . During re-inspection, the notification still lists all violated rules (even those a user has decided s/he will override) and the user must still elect to override those rules after the re-inspection. Inspections are performed over all addresses in the distribution lists (including “to,” “cc,” and “bcc”) applying all rules that have been entered. After sending the communication, the system will determine at  124  if the “do not save” mode has been selected by the user and, if so, the system will, at  126  delete the email from the sent folder, the deleted mail folder, and the user&#39;s log. The system may be set up for other actions to occur at  124  with respect to the recipients after the communication is sent or, alternatively, before the communication is sent. 
         [0107]    Referring to  FIG. 2 , which illustrates an example of a recipient&#39;s email conflict process of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  200  to three recipients  201 ,  203 , and  205 , each with a different email address. The system inspects the electronic communication at  204  based on the parameters at  202 . The system compares the distribution list of recipients  201 ,  203 , and  205  with the conflicting pair of recipients based on their email addresses. The parameters at  202  identify the email addresses of recipient  203  and recipient  205  as a conflicting pair. Since a conflict (i.e. rule violation based on the parameters) is identified at  206 , the electronic communication is not sent out and a notification and warning is provided to the user at  210  that identifies the rule defined by two conflicting recipients. The user is provided with the option at  212  to override the rule being violated by the proposed communication and thereby send the communication at  208 , or the option to make selective changes to the proposed communication at  214  by making changes at  216  such as either deleting a recipient and/or changing a recipient at  216 . If the user neither overrides the rule nor makes selective changes, the user is given the option to prevent the sending of the communication at  218  and to return to the email program at  220  in order to either delete the entire proposed communication or to make changes in the email program. After correcting the violation or making changes at  216 , the electronic communication will again be subjected to the process via path  222  and be re-inspected at  206 . After sending the communication, the system will determine at  224  if the “do not save” mode has been selected by the user and, if so, at  226  the system will delete the email from the sent folder, the deleted mail folder, and the user&#39;s log. 
         [0108]    Referring to  FIG. 3 , which illustrates an example of a recipient&#39;s second level domain name conflict process of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  300  to three recipients  301 ,  303 , and  305 , each with a different email address including a different second level domain name. The system inspects the electronic communication at  304  based on the parameters at  302 . The system compares the distribution list of recipients  301 ,  303 , and  305  with the conflicting pair of recipients based on their second level domain names. The parameters at  302  identify the second level domain names of recipient  303  and recipient  305  as a conflicting pair. Since a conflict (i.e. rule violation based on the parameters) is identified at  306 , the electronic communication is not sent out and a notification and warning is provided to the user at  310  that identifies the rule defined by two conflicting second level domain names. The user is provided with the option at  312  to override the rule being violated by the proposed communication and thereby send the communication at  308 , or the option to make selective changes to the proposed communication at  314  by making changes at  316  such as either deleting a recipient and/or changing a recipient at  316 . If the user neither overrides the rule nor makes selective changes, the user is given the option to prevent the sending of the communication at  318  and to return to the email program at  320  in order to either delete the entire proposed communication or to make changes in the email program. After correcting the violation or making changes at  316 , the electronic communication will again be subjected to the process via path  322  and be re-inspected at  306 . After sending the communication, the system will determine at  324  if the “do not save” mode has been selected by the user and, if so, at  326  the system will delete the email from the sent folder, the deleted mail folder, and the user&#39;s log. 
         [0109]    Referring to  FIG. 4 , which illustrates an example of a recipient&#39;s email block process (i.e. individual recipient conflict) of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  400  to three recipients  401 ,  403 , and  405 , each with a different email address. The system inspects the electronic communication at  404  based on the parameters at  402 . The parameters at  402  identify the email address of recipient at  403  as being blocked (i.e. individual recipient conflict). Since a block (i.e. rule violation based on the parameters) is identified at  406 , the electronic communication is not sent out and a notification and warning is provided to the user at  410  that identifies the rule defined by a blocked address. The user is provided with the option at  412  to override the rule being violated by the proposed communication and thereby send the communication at  408 , or the option to make selective changes to the proposed communication at  414  by making changes at  416  such as changing the recipient. If the user neither overrides the rule nor makes selective changes, the user is given the option to prevent the sending of the communication at  418  and to return to the email program at  420  in order to either delete the entire proposed communication or to make changes in the email program. After correcting the violation or making changes at  416 , the electronic communication will again be subjected to the process via path  422  and be re-inspected at  406 . After sending the communication, the system will determine at  424  if the “do not save” mode has been selected by the user and, if so, at  426  the system will delete the email from the sent folder, the deleted mail folder, and the user&#39;s log. 
         [0110]    Referring to  FIG. 5 , which illustrates an example of a recipient&#39;s second level domain name block process (i.e. individual second-level domain name conflict) of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  500  to three recipients  501 ,  503 , and  505 , each with a different email address including a different second level domain name. The system inspects the electronic communication at  504  based on the parameters at  502 . The parameters at  502  identify the second level domain name of recipient  503  as being blocked. Since a block (i.e. rule violation based on the parameters) is identified at  506 , the electronic communication is not sent out and a notification and warning is provided to the user at  510  that identifies the rule defined by a blocked second level domain name. The user is provided with the option at  512  to override the rule being violated by the proposed communication and thereby send the communication at  508 , or the option to make selective changes to the proposed communication at  514  by making changes at  516  such as changing the recipient. If the user neither overrides the rule nor makes selective changes, the user is given the option to prevent the sending of the communication at  518  and to return to the email program at  520  in order to either delete the entire proposed communication or to make changes in the email program. After correcting the violation or making changes at  516 , the electronic communication will again be subjected to the process via path  522  and be re-inspected at  506 . After sending the communication, the system will determine at  524  if the “do not save” mode has been selected by the user and, if so, at  526  the system will delete the email from the sent folder, the deleted mail folder, and the user&#39;s log. 
         [0111]    Referring to  FIG. 6 , which illustrates an example of a missing intended recipient process of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  600  to two recipients  601  and  603 . The system inspects the electronic communication at  604  based on the parameters at  602 . The parameters at  602  identify recipients  601  and  603  as part of a group (i.e. electronic communication sent to one must include every recipient in the group) which group includes 605. Since a missing intended recipient is identified at  606 , the electronic communication is not sent out and a notification and warning is provided to the user at  610  that identifies the rule defined by a group. The user is provided with the option at  612  to override the rule being violated by the proposed communication and thereby send the communication at  608 , or the option to make selective changes to the proposed communication at  614  by making changes at  616  such as adding the recipient. If the user neither overrides the rule nor makes selective changes, the user is given the option to prevent the sending of the communication at  618  and to return to the email program at  620  in order to either delete the entire proposed communication or to make changes in the email program. After correcting the violation or making changes at  616 , the electronic communication will again be subjected to the process via path  622  and be re-inspected at  606 . After sending the communication, the system will determine at  624  if the “do not save” mode has been selected by the user and, if so, at  626  the system will delete the email from the sent folder, the deleted mail folder, and the user&#39;s log. 
         [0112]    Referring to  FIG. 7 , which illustrates an example of a recipient&#39;s email address being identified with certain action of the present invention, a user sends an electronic communication at  700  to three recipients  701 ,  703  and  705 , each with a different email address. The parameters at  702  identify the email address of recipient  703  as being identified with the action of deleting the electronic communication after it is sent. The system inspects the electronic communication at  604  based on the parameters at  702 . The system compares the distribution list of recipients  701 ,  703  and  705  with the email address on the action list. Since the action of deleting is identified at  706 , notification is given to the sender that the electronic communication is sent and will be deleted at  708 . If the user with authorization overrides the deletion at  710 , the electronic communication is not deleted at  712 . If the user does not override the deletion at  710 , the electronic communication is deleted at  714  from the system, including the sent item folder, deleted item folder, etc. 
         [0113]      FIG. 8  illustrates an example of a centralized application process of the present invention wherein a user utilizes both a computer system  802  and a mobile device  804 . This centralized application process utilizes a central server at  800 , e.g. a Microsoft® Exchange server or other cloud-based server. A user can configure and identify various conflicting, blocking, or action parameters via the computer system at  802 . The parameters are stored at  806 , which may be a database, persistent storage or other type of files. The parameters stored at  806  may include more than one user&#39;s configuration, whether each user&#39;s configuration is unique or the same as other users. An administrator at  808  may access the stored parameters  806  for further configuration and generating reports. When a user sends an electronic communication at  802 , it goes to the central server at  800 , and then the system inspects the electronic communication at  810  by comparing it with the parameters stored at  806 . If there is no conflict, blocking or action to be taken, the electronic communication is sent at  812 . If there is a conflict, blocking or action to be taken, a notification at  814  is provided to the user and an event log is created and recorded in the system. Different options may be provided at  814  as described in connection with  FIGS. 2-7  after a conflict, block or action is detected. Similarly for the user using a mobile device to send the electronic communication at  804 , it goes to the central server at  800  (via ActiveSync if a Microsoft® Exchange server is used at  800 ) and then the system inspects the electronic communication at  810  by comparing it with the parameters stored at  806 . The process after 810 for the user using a mobile device at  805  is the same as for the user using a computer system at  802 . 
         [0114]    Although  FIGS. 2-7  each illustrates a single rule is being detected by the system, the system checks for all the parameters set up in the system. Each recipient of an electronic communication (whether the recipient is the direct recipient (“To”) or a copied recipient (“cc” or “bcc”)) is scrutinized by the system and compared to all the parameters. When multiple violations are detected, the user is notified of each violation, whether simultaneously or sequentially upon resolution of each violation. 
         [0115]      FIGS. 11-19  show an embodiment of the system of the present invention, called Oops Mail, as a plug-in of Microsoft® Outlook on a personal computer. Once the system is installed as a plug-in to Microsoft® Outlook, it appears under the Add-ins Tab  10  of Outlook as shown in  FIG. 11 . At the Oops Mail Add-ins Tab  12 , there is an option called “Config,” which is for the configuration of Oops Mail. 
         [0116]    When the user clicks onto “Config,” a “Configuration” dialog box  20  appears as shown in  FIG. 12 . The dialog box  20  allows the user to choose (“Add” or “Edit”) the “Rule Type”  21  and input the parameters under “Address”  22  and “Conflict”  23  and identify it with a “Description”  24 . Once a row is completed, the “Date Created”  25  is the date the parameters are saved for a particular “Rule Type.” Under the first row  26 , a “Domain Block” is set up for marisaivy such that any email to *marisaivy* will be blocked. Under the second row  27 , a “Recipient Conflict” is set up for recipient  14  and recipient  16  such that any email listing both recipients  14  and  16  will be blocked. Under the third row  28 , another “Recipient Conflict” is set up for recipient  14  and recipient  15 , marisa@yahoo.com, such that any email listing both recipients  14  and  15  will be blocked. Under the fourth row  29 , the “Prevent Saving” action is set up for recipient  14  such that any email sent to recipient  14  will not be saved in the “Sent” folder nor the “Deleted” folder. Any rows can be chosen for editing (“Edit”) or deletion (“Delete”). The information shown in the Configuration dialog box  20  can be sorted and filtered as desired by the user to facilitate review of the parameters. 
         [0117]    Referring to  FIG. 11 , an email is shown as being composed by the user Todd J. Cohen to recipient  14 , larry@company1.com, and recipient  16 , marisa@company2.com. Upon typing in recipient  14  in the “To” field, a preliminary notice  18  appears adjacent the email message near the bottom advising the user that there is more information specifically related to recipient  14 . If the user clicks on such preliminary notice  18 , it will bring up the relevant configurations related to recipient  14  (e.g. Configuration dialog box  20  of  FIG. 12  filtered to show only rows  27 ,  28  and  29 ). Similarly, when the user types in recipient  16  in the “To” field, a second preliminary notice (not shown) may appear as related to recipient  16 . 
         [0118]    When the user clicks onto “Add” in the Configuration dialog box  20 , a “Add a New Rule” dialog box  31  appears as shown in  FIG. 13 . The user can choose one of the many “Rule Type” available from the system from a drop down menu, such as “Block an Email Address” (i.e. individual recipient conflict), “Block a Domain” (i.e. single second level domain conflict), “Add a Recipient Conflict” (i.e. recipient conflicting pair or conflicting group), “Add a Domain Conflict” (i.e. second level domain conflicting pair or conflicting group), “Prevent Saving in Sent Mail” (i.e. action of deleting from “Sent” folder or “Delete” folder). 
         [0119]    When the user chooses “Add a Recipient Conflict” in the “Add a New Rule” dialog box  31 , additional information is requested from the user in dialog box  32  as shown in  FIG. 14 . The user can input or choose from a drop down menu the email addresses of the conflicting pair, i.e. test1@aol.com and test2@aol.com, and may enter a Note or Description for this Rule. The email addresses for the drop down menu may be populated from the user&#39;s Contact list that resides within Microsoft® Outlook or imported from a separate file. When the user clicks on the button “Add” in dialog box  32 , the parameters for the rule is saved in the system. 
         [0120]    Referring to  FIG. 15 , the Configuration dialog box  20  provides a special rule that can be set up independently called “Single Recipient Mode.” When the user clicks on the “Single Recipient Mode” on the top menu of the dialog box  20 , the “Single Recipient Configuration” dialog box  33  appears. The user can enable (or disable) the “Single Recipient Mode,” which blocks the sending of all emails with more than one recipient. 
         [0121]    Referring to  FIG. 16 , the Configuration dialog box  20  provides a “Search”  30  feature within the configuration settings (i.e. parameters). The search can be “Search By” any of the column headings, i.e. a “Rule,” an “Address,” a “Conflict,” a “Description,” or a “Date.” 
         [0122]    When the user tries to send an email to recipient  14  and recipient  16  by pressing the “Send” button, the system checks the parameters and if a violation is detected, the email is not sent and a notice dialog box “Block List Alert” appears as shown in  FIG. 17 .  FIG. 17  illustrates that two rules were violated, i.e. “Domain Block List” and “Recipient Conflict.” The descriptions of the rules are shown as the reason for the blocking. The user is provided with the option of overriding the block and violation to send the email as is. If the user chooses to override the block, the email is sent. If the user chooses not to override the block, the user can manually correct the email by removing recipient  16  from the email and then press “Send” again.  FIG. 18  shows a “Block List Alert” dialog box  35  similar to dialog box  34 , except this illustrates that four rules were violated, i.e. “Email Block List,” “Domain Block List,” “Recipient Conflict,” and “Multiple Recipients.” The user is provided with the option of overriding the block and violation to send the email as is. If the user chooses to override the block, the email is sent. Although  FIGS. 17 and 18  illustrate an “all or nothing” overriding option, it is contemplated that each violation may have its own option of overriding such that the user can selectively override some, all or none of the violations. Further, the option of editing the email addresses to avoid the violation may also be provided within the dialog box  34  or  35  without the need to return to the original email being composed. 
         [0123]    When the user clicks onto “Edit” in the Configuration dialog box  20 , a “Edit a Rule” dialog box  36  appears as shown in  FIG. 19 . Referring to  FIG. 19 , the user can input or select an email address from a drop down menu when the “Email Block” rule is edited. The Note or Description may also be edited. Once the user clicks the button “Save” in dialog box  36 , the parameters for the rule is saved in the system. 
         [0124]    It is understood and contemplated that when referring to electronic communication in the above descriptions with the figures, it includes all forms of electronic communications, including but not limited to emails, SMS and other text messages, Twitter® messages (tweets), Facebook® and other blog postings, telephone calls, instant messaging, etc. 
         [0125]    The features of the invention illustrated and described herein are the preferred embodiments. Therefore, it is understood that the appended claims are intended to cover the variations disclosed and unforeseeable embodiments with insubstantial differences that are within the spirit of the claims.