RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 14.Jan.2009 3:34:36 PM
|
|
|
RSP
Posts: 1447
Joined: 31.Oct.2006
From: The East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Status: offline
|
2 new public folders for administrators to make use of:
Remove sender from Whitelist
Remove sender's domain from Whitelist
Should be fairly easy to implement, and will help all of those who find the whitelist hard to manage...
Possibly make that 4 new folders:
Remove sender from Whitelist
Remove sender's domain from Whitelist
Remove recipient from Whitelist
Remove recipient's domain from Whitelist
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 31.Jan.2009 12:12:51 AM
|
|
|
Fulano
Posts: 19
Joined: 11.Sep.2004
From: desconocida
Status: offline
|
one more try
Scenerio
jcolt@mycompany.com enable or disable to send or receive mail from other domains like hotmail.com, yahoo.com or both.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 19.Feb.2009 8:48:22 AM
|
|
|
pbparker
Posts: 34
Joined: 31.Aug.2006
Status: offline
|
I'd like to see a threshold ability of when to send email alerts when updates such as anti-phishing fail.
Example: Send email when update fails XX times in a row, where the user sets the XX value. A 0 (zero) would mean always send an email.
That way we wouldn't worry about intermittent updates not working and only get notified when there is a consistent recurring issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 25.Feb.2009 6:53:45 PM
|
|
|
nzbob
Posts: 1
Joined: 25.Feb.2009
Status: offline
|
We have false positives forwarded to the administrator, it would be great if the administrator could right the false message and select "Add to whitelist and resend"
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 27.Feb.2009 12:19:37 PM
|
|
|
RSP
Posts: 1447
Joined: 31.Oct.2006
From: The East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Status: offline
|
Auto perimeter server discovery:
Make the auto discovery also check an internet-based DNS server, such as a root server for MX records. The internal DNS server may not know of backup MX servers for the domains.
Ensure it discovers its own external address in order to exclude it from the list.
Make a fresh install automatically configure perimeter servers (if it doesn't already), based on an educated guess from the auto discovery from external DNS servers as well as internal DNS servers.
Think of a less-confusing way to describe perimeter servers. If a site uses backup MX servers, then the ME server is described as "Not a perimeter server" even though it does receive email directly from the internet. An alternative description could be: This machine is not the only perimeter server. Or: This machine is the only perimeter server.
Reword the explanatory text to avoid confusion - example: If inbound emails arriving AT this server are being relayed through another SMTP server, such as a backup MX, then you must list these servers below.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 27.Feb.2009 1:07:02 PM
|
|
|
RSP
Posts: 1447
Joined: 31.Oct.2006
From: The East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Status: offline
|
A tests-based configuration rather than module-based.
I know this FR has been brought up a zillion times before and is unlikely to be actioned given the major re-write it would incur, but I'm going to bring it up again.
The current module-based scenario is becoming restrictive. Many tests are being lumped together that maybe shouldn't.
For example, I would love to make use of the Botnet check, but I do not have the confidence to enable it given that my DNS Blacklists module is set to delete matches, and I do not wish to have a different action for Blacklists because of the sheer number of true-positives this will create.
Therefore, a tests-based scenario would suit me better.
An example of this could take the form of a table (this is just a quick off-the-top-of-my-head scenario, and probably has many weaknesses):
Order/Test type/Test variable/Test Weight/Test Action/Action Variable/Action Variable/
1/Directory Harvesting@SMTP/1 or more invalid recipient/ /Reject
2/DNS Blacklist /zen.spamhaus.org / /Delete
3/Whitelist /AutoWhiteList / /Pass
4/DNS Blacklist /smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net / /Skip/6
5/DNS Blacklist /dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net /50 /Tag/SPAM/X-Header
6/DNS Blacklist /Zombie / /Forward/administrator@mysite
7/Content /Remote Images Only /80 /Weight
8/Header /Malformed MIME FROM / /Move to user's junk mail folder
9/Weight /Cumulative Weights /100/Tag/Probable SPAM/Prepend
etc. etc.
So for the above:
Reject any emails with invalid recipients at the SMTP layer
Delete zen.spamhaus.org matches (because I have confidence in it)
Anything in the auto whitelist gets passed and all further tests are skipped
smtp.dnsbl.sorbs.net matches skip to test 6 (ie bypass test 5)
Anything on dul.dnsbl.sorbs.net gets tagged SPAM as an X-header and a weight of 50 added
Zombie matches get forwarded to administrator
Email with remote images only gets a weight of 80 added
Malformed MIME FROM gets moved to the junk folder
Weights of more than 100 get tagged as "Probable SPAM" as a prepended tag
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 10.Mar.2009 2:45:54 PM
|
|
|
johnmorgan
Posts: 3
Joined: 18.Jun.2008
Status: offline
|
Better Outlook functionality, either by integrating with Outlook's Junk Email filtering or a custom toolbar so users can manage false positives and spam that gets through more easily. It's too much to expect people who can barely figure out how to send an email in the first place to drag the right email to the right folder!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 10.Mar.2009 5:06:14 PM
|
|
|
RSP
Posts: 1447
Joined: 31.Oct.2006
From: The East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: johnmorgan
Better Outlook functionality, either by integrating with Outlook's Junk Email filtering or a custom toolbar so users can manage false positives and spam that gets through more easily. It's too much to expect people who can barely figure out how to send an email in the first place to drag the right email to the right folder!
johnmorgan, take a look at this thread contributed by a user: http://forums.gfi.com/fb.aspx?m=900773321
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 18.Mar.2009 4:57:02 AM
|
|
|
RSP
Posts: 1447
Joined: 31.Oct.2006
From: The East Riding of Yorkshire, UK
Status: offline
|
More conditions for keyword checking: eg: NEAR, NOT, LIKE
Example: I always have to remove "list AND error" because this traps many legitimate emails when the words are not even in the same part of the thread, but "list NEAR error", where NEARness is configurable, would be better.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 19.Mar.2009 6:24:15 AM
|
|
|
m.abbate
Posts: 1
Joined: 19.Mar.2009
Status: offline
|
Hi;
can we have in next build a new database,like sql,where we can stored the log of GFI spam filters,for example Directory harvesting,Spamrazer etc...?
the .txt log increase very quickly if you recieve a lot of spam message and with database (with iis integration,like email archive web client)it's possible to search a lost message,or a false positive,too very fast.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 19.Mar.2009 11:35:35 AM
|
|
|
sterner
Posts: 32
Joined: 5.Oct.2006
Status: offline
|
I would also like to see logs be sent to an SQL database instead of .txt files.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 25.Mar.2009 2:16:54 AM
|
|
|
Aitishnik
Posts: 13
Joined: 20.Mar.2009
Status: offline
|
There is quite many mail caught by Bayesian filter, but i cannot set its action to "Delete" because of the risk of false positives. So it would be useful if Bayesian filter will have two possible actions based on different values of spam score. Therefore, it will be possible to set the action for the low-score spam to "Forward to folder" and the action for high-score spam to "delete". It will save a chance to save the legitimate mail in case of false positive, but also will reduce the amount of spam in spam folders.
p.s. i am sorry for my bad english.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 25.Mar.2009 12:57:00 PM
|
|
|
kharris
Posts: 23
Joined: 10.Aug.2007
Status: offline
|
1. Log files sent to a database instead of txt files would be huge. way too slow and cumbersome to manage currently.
2. Ability to search the dashboard to aid in troubleshooting incoming messages
3. Ability to configure rules and apply them to specific users in ME, like can be done in MailSecurity. For instance, it would be great to remove employment@domain.com from the standard module processing and create specific rules for how ME will handle mail sent to that address, which may differ from how mail to the rest of the recipients in my organization receive mail.
4. Allow monitored mail to be copied to more than one user/email address.
Hope to see many of the feature requests we all ask for in the future! thanks,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 29.Mar.2009 5:12:41 PM
|
|
|
Cosmas
Posts: 3
Joined: 29.Mar.2009
Status: offline
|
Hi, would like all mail to be stored in a quarantine with a management interface that would allow mail to be released to end user, whitelisted, blacklisted, etc. Currently having all email forwarded to a mailbox with false positives being forwarded to the end user, having to modify subject line, etc is time consuming and unprofessinal (especially when the end user then replies to the message and doesn't change the to address to the correct email address!!!) I did see a thread on this previously that stated it would be added as a feature request but it hasnt yet made its way into the product.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: GFI MailEssentials & Feature Requests - 1.Apr.2009 10:41:39 AM
|
|
|
MarkDraa
Posts: 12
Joined: 30.Jan.2005
From: Pennsylvania, US
Status: offline
|
I would like the ability to generate a report showing the count (by folder, by user, by date) of emails moved or copied into the GFI Public Folders. This would allow easier analysis of the relative performance of the software on an organization-wide basis. How many spam messages are being missed by the system, and which users are they being delivered to? This analysis in turn would allow more intelligent adjustment of the module priorities and settings.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Printable Version
