US5841982A
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method and system for testing the operation of an electronic mail switch
Assignee: Qwest Communications International Inc
•
Filing: 1996-06-17
•
Granted: 1998-11-24
•
Expires: 2016-06-17
Abstract
Abstract A method and system for testing the operation of an electronic mail switch that supports interaction between different electronic mail applications having different formats includes generating a test message having a first format. The test message is forwarded to the electronic mail switch to generate a received message having a second format. The test message is compared with the received message based on a plurality of comparison tests. Finally, an error in the operation of the electronic mail switch can be determined based on the comparison.
Inventors
- 👤 Derek J. Brouwer
- 👤 Neal Gordon Staats
- 👤 David Allen Knox
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-10-29 21:36
CPC Classifications
H; H04; H04L; H04L51/00; H04L51/21; H04L51/23; H04L43/00; H04L43/50; H04L51/06; H04L51/066
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 26
Claim 1
Independent Claim
84 words
A method for testing the operation of an electronic mail switch that supports interaction between different electronic mail applications each having different formats, comprising: generating a test message having a first format; forwarding the test message to the electronic mail switch to generate a received message having a second format; comparing the test message with the received message based on a plurality of comparison tests; and determining if there is an error in the operation of the electronic mail switch based on the comparison.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
84 words
A method for testing the operation of an electronic mail switch that supports interaction between different electronic mail applications each having different formats, comprising: generating a test message having a first format; forwarding the test message to the electronic mail switch to generate a received message having a second format; comparing the test message with the received message based on a plurality of comparison tests; and determining if there is an error in the operation of the electronic mail switch based on the comparison.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
34 words
The method as recited in claim 1 wherein comparing the test message further includes converting the first format of the test message and the second format of the received message into corresponding common formats.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
25 words
The method as recited in claim 1 wherein comparing the test message includes performing a two-pass checksum on the test message and the received message.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
21 words
The method as recited in claim 3 wherein performing the two-pass checksum includes performing a strict checksum and a loose checksum.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
67 words
The method as recited in claim 4 wherein the test message and the received message each include a body section having a first plurality of characters and wherein performing the strict checksum includes determining a first check number for the test message and the received message based on each of the first plurality of characters in the body section of the test message and the received message.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
49 words
The method as recited in claim 5 wherein performing the loose checksum includes determining a second check number for the test message and the received message based on a second plurality of the first plurality of characters in the body section of the test message and the received message.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
29 words
The method as recited in claim 6 wherein the first plurality of characters includes any one or more of the following: color, text, style, formatting, spaces and new lines.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
27 words
The method as recited in claim 1 wherein comparing the test message includes comparing an addressee of the test message with an addressee of the received message.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
26 words
The method as recited in claim 8 wherein comparing the test message includes comparing each of the addresses based on a predefined addressee error exception file.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
27 words
The method as recited in claim 1 wherein comparing the test message includes comparing a priority of the test message with a priority of the received message.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
35 words
The method as recited in claim 10 wherein comparing the test message includes comparing the priority of the test message with the priority of the received message based on a predefined priority error exception file.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
29 words
The method as recited in claim 1 wherein comparing the test message includes comparing a subject line of the test message with a subject line of the received message.
Claim 14
Independent Claim
92 words
A system for testing the operation of an electronic mail switch that supports interaction between different electronic mail applications each having different formats comprising: means for generating a test message having a first format; means for forwarding the test message to the electronic mail switch to generate a received message having a second format; means for comparing the test message with the received message based on a plurality of comparison tests; and means for determining if there is an error in the operation of the electronic mail switch based on the comparison.
Claim 15
Independent Claim
92 words
A system for testing the operation of an electronic mail switch that supports interaction between different electronic mail applications each having different formats comprising: means for generating a test message having a first format; means for forwarding the test message to the electronic mail switch to generate a received message having a second format; means for comparing the test message with the received message based on a plurality of comparison tests; and means for determining if there is an error in the operation of the electronic mail switch based on the comparison.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
29 words
The system as recited in claim 13 wherein the means for comparing includes means for comparing a priority of the test message with a priority of the received message.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
28 words
The system as recited in claim 14 wherein the means for comparing includes means for comparing each of the priorities based on a predefined priority error exception file.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
25 words
The system as recited in claim 13 wherein the means for comparing includes means for converting the first and second formats into corresponding common formats.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
27 words
The system as recited in claim 13 wherein the means for comparing includes means for performing a two-pass checksum on the test message and the received message.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
26 words
The system as recited in claim 17 wherein the means for performing a two-pass checksum includes means for performing a strict checksum and a loose checksum.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
72 words
The system as recited in claim 18 wherein the test message and the received message each include a body section having a first plurality of characters and wherein the means for performing the strict checksum includes means for determining a first check number for the test message and the received message based on each of the first plurality of characters in the body section of the test message and the received message.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
54 words
The system as recited in claim 19 wherein the means for performing the loose checksum includes means for determining a second check number for the test message and the received message based on a second plurality of the first plurality of characters in the body section of the test message and the received message.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim
29 words
The system as recited in claim 20 wherein the first plurality of characters includes any one or more of the following: color, text, style, formatting, spaces and new lines.
Claim 24
Dependent Claim
29 words
The system as recited in claim 13 wherein the means for comparing includes means for comparing an addressee of the test message with an addressee of the received message.
Claim 25
Dependent Claim
24 words
The system as recited in claim 22 wherein the means for comparing each of the addressees based on a predefined addressee error exception file.
Claim 26
Dependent Claim
31 words
The system as recited in claim 13 wherein the means for comparing includes means for comparing a subject line of the test message with a subject line of the received message.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US4106060A
Cited
US4733345A
Cited
US4962532A
Cited
US5377354A
Cited
US5421002A
Cited
US5369570A
Cited
US5519766A
Cited
US5557539A
Cited
US5633909A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2001-11-23 | 2002-05-25 | 2002-11-24 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2005-11-23 | 2006-05-25 | 2006-11-24 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2009-11-23 | 2010-05-25 | 2010-11-24 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |