Abstract:
The present invention discloses a method and system for filtering electronic communications based on the receiver&#39;s tolerance for attributes of both a sender and an electronic communication. The receiver&#39;s tolerance for an attribute is calculated based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to: self-reported preferences, past behavior and community norms. The attribute score is calculated based on an analysis of how closely either the sender or electronic communication exemplifies the attribute. An electronic communication is filtered if the attribute score exceeds the receiver&#39;s tolerance of the attribute. If an electronic communication is filtered it will not show up in the receiver&#39;s in-box, it will instead show up in a spam folder.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    The present application claims the benefit of priority of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/897,422 filed on Oct. 31, 2013 and U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/898,746 filed on Nov. 1, 2013, the entire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated herein by reference. 
     
    
     BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    The present invention relates to information processing systems. More specifically the invention is related to the field of filtering unwanted electronic communications. 
         [0003]    On any given day internet users&#39; are sent an overwhelming amount of unwanted electronic communications, or “spam”. Not surprisingly spam is considered to be an annoyance to internet users and many methods have been disclosed to identify spam and prevent it from reaching the receiver&#39;s in-box. There are three basic approaches used for filtering: Content Based Analysis (CBA); Sender Identification (SI); and Sender Reputation Analysis (SRA). 
         [0004]    CBF processes the information contained within the electronic communication such as: the message body; attachments; hyperlinks; and images for the purpose of identifying the electronic communication as spam or legitimate according to objective predetermined criteria. SI processes electronic communications to determine the sender&#39;s identity for the purpose of comparing the sender&#39;s identity to a list of known spammers, “blacklisting”, or known legitimate users, “whitelisting”, and identifying the electronic communication as spam or legitimate accordingly. SRA processes at least one electronic communication from a sender for the purpose of identifying the sender as a spammer or legitimate user based on objective predetermined criteria. These approaches are not mutually exclusive and can be used in consort. They efficiently identify objective spam, such as: mass solicitations; chain letters; and links to download computer viruses. 
         [0005]    The disclosed approaches fail to identify spam in many contexts. For example, many online dating services (ODS) have been developed to provide an online meeting place for people seeking to meet new friends or potential life partners based, in part, on their compatibilities. Once an individual registers with the ODS as a member they have access to a database containing profiles of other members. These profiles contain personal information about the member for example: likes and dislikes; beliefs; age; and job. Members are free to send electronic communications supported by the ODS to other members. 
         [0006]    Spam is a significant problem for ODS members. They receive a significant number of abusive or otherwise disturbing electronic communications on a daily basis. Along with these communications they receive a significant amount of electronic communications from well-intentioned members who, through no fault of own, do not meet the subjective requirements preferences of the recipient. They may for example: be too old, have the wrong hair color, or just not interest the recipient. Significantly, these factors cannot be captured by the traditional spam mitigation approaches in spam identification. CBA cannot identify the electronic communication as there is no spammy content in the electronic communication. Blacklisting and whitelisting and SBA fail for similar reasons, the sender of the communication is not a “spammer” it is the subjective preferences of the recipient that cause the electronic communication to be spam. There is no reason to stop all of the electronic communications from this sender as they are not considered spam by all users. 
         [0007]    For this reason many ODS members end up leaving the dating service, since they have to wade through so many unwanted communications to fine one potential match. There is therefore a need for an approach that is capable of: identifying the subjective preferences of the receiver and determine whether to filter the electronic communication based at least in part on the subjective preferences of the receiver. 
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0008]    A preferred embodiment of the present invention discloses a spam filtering method comprising: analyzing compatibility of a sender and a receiver of an electronic communication to calculate a compatibility score, the compatibility score is a numerical value, wherein a lower value is indicative of less compatibility and a higher numerical value is indicative of greater compatibility; and determining whether to filter the electronic communication based, at least in part, on the compatibility score. 
         [0009]    A second preferred embodiment of the present invention discloses a spam filtering method comprising: receiving an electronic communication from a sender; preventing the sender from sending an additional electronic communication until a compatibility score is calculated; and calculating a compatibility score. 
         [0010]    A third preferred embodiment of the present invention discloses a spam filtering system comprising: a compatibility component configured to analyze compatibility of a sender and a receiver of an electronic communication to calculate a compatibility score, the compatibility score is a numerical value, wherein a lower value is indicative of less compatibility and a higher numerical value is indicative of greater compatibility; and a filtering component configured to determine whether to filter the electronic communication based, at least in part, on the compatibility score. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING(S) 
         [0011]    The foregoing summary, as well as the following detailed description of the invention, will be better understood when read in conjunction with the appended drawings. For the purpose of illustrating the invention, there are shown in the drawings embodiments which are presently preferred. It should be understood, however, that the invention is not limited to the precise arrangements and instrumentalities shown. 
           [0012]    In the drawings: 
           [0013]      FIG. 1  is a high level schematic view of one of the preferred embodiments of the present invention. 
           [0014]      FIG. 2  is a schematic view showing a method for calculating a compatibility score and determining how to filter an electronic communication. 
           [0015]      FIG. 3  is a schematic view showing a method for calculating a tolerance threshold. 
           [0016]      FIG. 4  is a schematic view showing a method for calculating an attribute score. 
           [0017]      FIG. 5  is a schematic view showing an alternate method for calculating a compatibility score and determining how to filter an electronic communication. 
           [0018]      FIG. 6  is a high level schematic view of one of a second preferred embodiment of the present invention. 
           [0019]      FIG. 7  is a more detailed schematic view of one of a second preferred embodiment of the present invention. 
           [0020]      FIG. 8  is a high level schematic view of a third preferred embodiment of the invention. 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION 
       [0021]    Certain terminology is used in the following description for convenience only and is not limiting. Unless specifically set forth herein, the terms “a”, “an”, and “the” are not limited to one element but instead should be read as meaning “at least one”. The terminology includes the words above specifically mentioned, derivatives thereof, and words of similar import. 
         [0022]    As best shown in  FIG. 1  a preferred embodiment the present invention discloses a method for filtering spam  1000 . The method comprises the steps of: analyzing the compatibility of a sender and a receiver of an electronic communication  1100 ; calculating a compatibility score based, at least in part on the analysis of the compatibility of the sender and the receiver  1200 ; and determining whether to filter the electronic communication based, at least in part on the compatibility score  1300 . 
         [0023]    As best shown in  FIG. 2 . The step of analyzing the compatibility of the sender and receiver can be accomplished by requesting both the sender and the receiver to provide an answer to a challenge question  1101  and  1102 . For example for an ODS challenge question may be “do you smoke”, with potential answers of: often; sometimes; occasionally; or never. The answer of the sender and the receiver are then compared  1201 . 
         [0024]    Preferably the sender and the receiver will be requested a plurality of challenge questions. Even more preferably the sender and receiver will be requested to answer 5 challenge questions. Preferably the challenge question is selected by the receiver for the sender to answer from a plurality of potential challenge question. Preferably the challenge question is a multiple choice question wherein the sender and the receiver are required to provide exactly one answer. Optionally any question where an analysis of the responses would lead to an increased or decreased likelihood of compatibility may be utilized. Such questions are known in the art and no detailed description is required. 
         [0025]    The compatibility score is a numerical value that captures the anticipated response a receiver will have to receiving an electronic communication from the sender. A higher value indicates a greater compatibility between the sender and receiver and consequently a diminished chance of the receiver considering the electronic communication spam. A lower value is indicia of a lower compatibility between the sender and receiver and consequently a greater change that the receiver will consider the electronic communication to be spam. If the sender&#39;s response to the challenge question  1101  does not match the receiver&#39;s response to the challenge question  1102  then then this would indicate that the sender and receiver are not compatible and the compatibility score is set to zero  1202 . If the sender&#39;s response to the challenge question  1101  does match the receiver&#39;s response to the challenge question  1102  then then this would indicate that the sender and receiver are compatible and the compatibility score is set to one  1203 . Optionally a range of values between zero and one can be used to represent a continuum of compatibility. 
         [0026]    The electronic communication will then be filtered based, at least in part on the compatibility score. If the compatibility score is zero  1202  then the electronic communication will be filtered  1301 . If the compatibility score is one  1203  then the electronic communication will be forwarded to the receiver&#39;s in-box  1302 . Filtering,  FIG. 1   1300 , is the process of preventing the electronic communication from being forwarded to the receiver&#39;s in-box. Preferably the filtered electronic communication is still forwarded to the receiver however; it is forwarded to a spam folder. This advantageously allows the receiver to overrule the filtering if they feel they are compatible with the sender. Alternatively the filtered electronic communication can be completely blocked and not forwarded to the receiver. 
         [0027]    Alternatively, as best shown in  FIGS. 3-4 , analyzing the compatibility of the sender and the receiver can be accomplished by calculating a tolerance threshold  1103  and an attribute score  1104 . The tolerance threshold  1103  is a numerical value representing the receiver&#39;s tolerance of an attribute. The attribute may be associated with: the sender for example in the ODS context, an attribute may be does the sender smoke; or the electronic communication for example, does the electronic communication contain cut and pasted sections. A high value represents a greater tolerance for the attribute while a lower value represents a lower tolerance for the attribute. 
         [0028]    Preferably a baseline tolerance  1106  is initially to the tolerance threshold of a plurality of receivers. The tolerance threshold of the plurality of receivers is determined by a survey  1105 . Survey methods are known in the art and a detailed description of the survey is not needed. The baseline tolerance  1106  is then adjusted up to indicate a greater tolerance for the attribute or down to indicate a lower tolerance for the attribute. The adjustments are calculated based upon an analysis of: zero or more electronic communications sent by the receiver  1107 ; zero or more electronic communications responded to by the receiver  1108 ; and the responses the receiver gave to the survey  1109 . 
         [0029]    As shown in  FIG. 4 , the attribute score  1104  is a numerical value that represents how well the sender or the electronic communication exemplifies a particular attribute. A higher attribute score  1104  indicates that the sender or the electronic communication exemplifies the attribute; a lower score indicates that the sender or electronic communication do not exemplify the attribute. The attribute score  1104  is calculated by analyzing: the sender&#39;s response to the survey  1110 ; the electronic communication  1111 ; and zero or more additional electronic communications sent by the sender  1112 . 
         [0030]    As shown in  FIG. 5  the tolerance threshold  1103  and attribute score  1104  are utilized to calculate a compatibility score  1202 . The compatibility score is a numerical value that attempts to quantify if the receiver will tolerate the sender&#39;s attributes. Preferably If the Attribute score exceeds the tolerance threshold  1204  this indicates that the receiver will not be able to tolerate the sender&#39;s attributes and the compatibility score will be set to zero. Alternatively, if the Attribute score does not exceeds the tolerance threshold  1205  this indicates that the receiver will be able to tolerate the sender&#39;s attributes and the compatibility score will be set to one. Optionally the compatibility score may take on any value between zero and one to indicate a range of compatibility. 
         [0031]    When the attribute score exceeds the tolerance threshold  1204  the sender and the receiver are not compatible and the electronic communication is filtered  1303 . If the attribute score does not exceed the tolerance threshold  1205  then the sender and the receiver are compatible and the electronic communication is forwarded to the receiver&#39;s in-box  1304 . 
         [0032]    In a second preferred embodiment as best shown in  FIG. 6  the present invention discloses a method for filtering spam  2000  comprising the steps of: receiving an electronic communication  2100 ; preventing a sender who is the sender associated with sending the electronic communication from sending one or more additional electronic communications until a compatibility score is determined  2200 ; and calculate a compatibility score  2300 . As shown in  FIG. 7  the receiver selects a deal-breaker question  2301 . Preferably the receiver will select the deal-breaker question from a plurality of potential deal-breaker questions  2301 . The receiver may select any number of deal-breaker questions. Preferably the receiver will select five deal-breaker questions. The sender will be prevented from sending an additional electronic communication,  FIG. 6. 2200 , until the sender answers all deal breaker questions selected by the receiver  2301 . As shown in  FIG. 7  once the sender answers all the deal-breaker questions; the sender&#39;s answers are compared to the receiver&#39;s responses  2303 . A compatibility score is calculated based on this comparison  2300 . Once the compatibility score has been calculated  2300  the Sender may send additional electronic communications  2201 . This advantageously incentives the sender to respond to the deal-breaker questions quickly. All calculations performed by this and the previous embodiment are done by means of a computer processor. 
         [0033]    In a third preferred embodiment the invention discloses a spam filtering system as shown in  FIG. 8 ,  3000  comprising: a compatibility component  3001  configured to; analyze the compatibility of a sender and receiver of an electronic communication to calculate a compatibility score; and a filtering component  1301  configured to determine whether to filter an electronic communication based, at least in part on the compatibility score. The compatibility score is a numerical representation of the compatibility between the sender and the receiver. A higher compatibility score indicates a greater compatibility and a lower compatibility score indicates a lower compatibility. The spam filtering system further comprising a routing component  3003 , wherein the routing component retrieves the electronic communication from the sender and forwards the electronic communication to the receiver. The spam filtering system further comprising a database component  3304 , configured to store a plurality of profiles in a computer readable format. Each profile is associated with one of a plurality of receivers or one of a plurality of senders. The compatibility component  3001  is further configured to analyze a profile of a sender to calculate an attribute score. The compatibility component  3001  is further configured to analyze a profile of a receiver to calculate a tolerance threshold. The filtering component  3002  is configured to compare the tolerance threshold to the attribute score to determine a compatibility score. 
         [0034]    It will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that changes could be made to the embodiments described above without departing from the broad inventive concept thereof. It is understood, therefore, that this invention is not limited to the particular embodiments disclosed, but it is intended to cover modifications within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.