Dynamic filter generation for message management systems

Patent metadata

Field	Value
Publication number	US-9871751-B2
Application number	US-201514937658-A
Country	US
Kind code	B2
Filing date	Nov 10, 2015
Priority date	Mar 27, 2014
Publication date	Jan 16, 2018
Grant date	Jan 16, 2018

Abstract

Filtering rules for incoming messages can be dynamically generated by a message management service based on patterns in the user's behavior. The message management service can analyze event records associating user actions with features of messages to detect correlations between message features and resulting actions, including correlations across multiple messaging accounts belonging to the same user. Based on correlations, the message management service can provide a suggested rule to the user's client device, and the user can accept or decline the suggestion.

First claim

What is claimed is:

1. A computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, at a message management service, a plurality of messages for a user;
analyzing, by the message management service, a plurality of event records for the user, each event record including a set of message features of a different one of the plurality of messages and event information indicating an action taken by the user on the message, to detect a correlation between a first triggering condition based at least in part on one or more of the message features and a first resulting action that is taken by the user on at least a minimum fraction of messages satisfying the first triggering condition;
generating, by the message management service, based on the analysis, a first suggested rule to automatically perform the first resulting action on future messages satisfying the first triggering condition;
sending, by the message management service, the first suggested rule to a client device associated with the user;
obtaining from the client device, by the message management service, event information indicating a user response to the first suggested rule;
in the event that the user response indicates that the user accepted the first suggested rule, adding, by the message management service, the first suggested rule to a set of established rules to be automatically applied to messages received for the user; and
in the event that the user response indicates that the user has expressly rejected the first suggested rule, determining, by the message management service, when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again at a later time based on a new message that satisfies the first triggering condition based at least in part on the user response.

2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again includes:
in response to the user expressly rejecting the first suggested rule:
initializing a delay counter, wherein the message management service does not send the first suggested rule to the client device again until the delay counter reaches a limit; and
incrementing a rejection counter to count a number of rejections of the first suggested rule by the user.

3. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the delay counter is based on an elapsed time since receiving the user response.

4. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the delay counter is based on a number of instances, subsequent to receiving the user response, in which a message to which the first suggested rule applies was acted on by the user.

5. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 further comprising:
determining whether the rejection counter has reached an upper limit; and
in the event that the rejection counter has reached an upper limit, adding the first suggested rule to a list of suppressed rules, wherein the message management service does not send suppressed rules to the client device.

6. The computer-implemented method of claim 2 wherein the client device is one of a plurality of client devices associated with the user and wherein, in response to determining that the user expressly rejected the first suggested rule, the message management service does not send the first suggested rule to any of the client devices associated with the user until the delay counter reaches the limit.

7. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again includes:
determining, based on the user response, whether the user requested to be asked again about the first suggested rule; and
in response to determining that the user requested to be asked again about the first suggested rule:
initializing a delay counter, wherein the message management service does not send the first suggested rule again until the delay counter reaches a limit.

8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1 wherein determining when to send the first suggested rule to the client device again includes:
determining, based on the user response, whether the user response to the first suggested rule is an ambiguous response; and
in response to determining that the user response is the ambiguous response:
incrementing an ambiguous-response counter to count a number of received ambiguous responses,
wherein the message management service suppresses sending of all suggested rules in the event that the ambiguous-response counter reaches a maximum value and wherein the ambiguous-response counter is reset in the event that a user response other than the ambiguous response is received.

9. A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium including one or more sequences of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the processors to:
communicate with a client device operable by a user;
receive messages for the user from one or more messaging services;
generate event records based on messages for the user received from the one or more messaging services and based on event information received from the client device, each event record including a set of message features of a message and event information indicating an action taken by the user on the message;
analyze the event records to detect correlations between a triggering condition based at least in part on one or more of the message features and a resulting action that is taken by the user on at least a minimum fraction of messages satisfying the triggering condition;
generate suggested rules based on the detected correlations;
send the particular suggested rule to the client device based on the determination;
receive a user response to the particular suggested rule;
add the particular suggested rule to the set of established rules in the event that the user response to the particular suggested rule indicates that the user accepts the particular suggested rule; and
send the particular suggested rule to the client device at a later time based on a new message that satisfies the triggering condition in the event that the user response to the particular suggested rule indicates that the user expressly rejects the particular suggested rule.

10. The system of claim 9 wherein the user response includes a response selected from a group consisting of:
a positive response indicating that the user expressly accepts the particular suggested rule;
a negative response indicating that the user expressly rejects the particular suggested rule;
a deferral response indicating that the user expressly defers a decision on whether to accept the particular suggested rule; and
an ambiguous response indicating that the user failed to provide a specific response to the particular suggested rule.

11. The system of claim 10 wherein in response to receiving the negative response, the instructions cause the processors to:
initialize a delay counter delay sending the particular suggested rule to the client device again until the delay counter reaches a limit;
increment a rejection counter to count a number of rejections of the particular suggested rule by the user; and
suppress the particular suggested rule in the event that the rejection counter reaches an upper limit.

12. The system of claim 10 wherein in response to receiving the deferral response, the instructions cause the processors to:
initialize a delay counter; and
delay sending the particular suggested rule again until the delay counter reaches a limit.

13. The system of claim 10 in response to receiving the ambiguous response, the instructions cause the processors to:
increment an

Assignees

• Dropbox Inc

Inventors

• Beausoleil Sean
• Dubie Jack
• Underwood Iv George Milton
• Cue Adam
• Devincenzi Anthony
• Roeder Michael

Classifications

• G06Q10/107 Primary

  Computer-aided management of electronic mailing [e-mailing] · CPC title

• H04L51/34

  Electricity · mapped topic

• H04L51/14

  Electricity · mapped topic

• H04L51/12 Primary

  Electricity · mapped topic

• H04L51/234

  for tracking messages · CPC title