Email Vouching System with Confirmation Code Verification

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The proliferation of unsolicited emails (spam) overwhelms network resources, is difficult to filter effectively, and poses legal jurisdiction challenges due to the ad hoc nature of the internet, allowing spammers to remain anonymous and exploit unsecured computers.

Innovation Solution

An email vouching system that requires senders to confirm their responsibility for sending emails by calculating and providing a confirmation code, which can be verified by recipients or ISPs, and establishes an explicit legal jurisdiction for disputes, thereby reducing spam and increasing accountability.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If email filtering and screening software is used to identify and block spam, then spam detection capability is improved, but system cost and maintenance requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespam detection capabilityVSAvoidsystem cost and maintenance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The system requires senders to self-verify their identity and responsibility for each email by providing confirmation codes. This self-service approach shifts the burden of spam prevention from recipient-side filtering to sender-side verification, eliminating the need for complex filtering software while maintaining high spam detection capability through the confirmation code mechanism.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs verification actions in advance by requiring senders to calculate and include confirmation codes with each email before it reaches the recipient. This preliminary verification prevents spam from reaching the filtering stage, thereby reducing the need for complex post-reception filtering and screening systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Object-affected harmful factors

If traditional spam filtering is implemented, then some spam is blocked, but legitimate emails are also erroneously blocked and spam volume is not reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespam blockingVSAvoidfalse positives and spam volume
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system implements a feedback mechanism where senders must actively confirm each email by providing a verification code. This feedback loop ensures that only emails with proper sender confirmation are delivered, eliminating false positives while maintaining high spam blocking effectiveness. The confirmation code requirement provides definitive verification that distinguishes legitimate emails from spam without erroneous blocking.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

3Adaptability or versatility

If the internet operates as an ad hoc network with user autonomy, then user freedom is maintained, but spam proliferation and anonymity of spammers increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveuser autonomyVSAvoidspam volume and spammer anonymity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSObject-generated harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system introduces an intermediary verification mechanism (confirmation codes) that operates between senders and recipients without restricting user autonomy. This intermediary layer maintains the ad hoc nature of the internet by allowing users to opt-in and out voluntarily, while simultaneously reducing spam and exposing spammers through the required verification process. The confirmation code system acts as a mediator that preserves freedom while eliminating harmful anonymous spamming.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentUS10038660B2System and method for reducing unsolicited e-mails
Publication Date: 2018.07.31 KRAMER RICHARD
  • US10038660B2 patent drawing
  • US10038660B2 patent drawing

AI summary

A method for reducing unsolicited e-mails includes receiving an e-mail message from a sender, storing the e-mail message within a holding unit, and sending a confirmation response request e-mail to the sender in response to the e-mail message from the sender. The confirmation response request e-mail may include a request for at least one confirmation code from the sender according to at least one calculation type/method specified in the confirmation response request e-mail. The method may also include receiving a confirmation e-mail from the sender in response to the confirmation response request e-mail, determining whether the confirmation e-mail includes a code correctly computed according the at least one confirmation code calculation type, and performing an action with respect to the e-mail message based upon the confirmation e-mail. The sender's support of the method creates an explicit agreement regarding legal jurisdiction governing any disputes arising out of the e-mail.