Prioritizing Mail Security filters

	Forums Register Login My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Member List Search FAQ Ticket List Log Out

Prioritizing Mail Security filters

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Web & Mail Security] >> GFI MailSecurity >> Prioritizing Mail Security filters

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Prioritizing Mail Security filters - 4.Jun.2009 12:13:22 PM

Ytsejamer1

Posts: 120
Joined: 7.Mar.2006
Status: offline

So I have a one or two content filters in place to detect a certain subject and the action is to NOT warn the user or the admin, and to simply delete the email. That works fine, however the same email fails the default attachment checker and thus an email is sent off to the end user.

Is there anyway to prioritize what happens first so that the few content checked emails are just dealt with first, which helps to NOT notify my users via the default attachment checking module?

I had set GFI ME to do some keyword checks against the GFI MS content checking notifications...however it wasn't good enough of a filter and some of the truly legit blocked notification emails never reached the end user for them to alert us and approve the email through.

Post #: 1

RE: Prioritizing Mail Security filters - 8.Jun.2009 8:24:08 AM

mherberg

Posts: 60
Joined: 19.May2009
Status: offline

Ytsejamer1,

technically you can change priorities of different MailSecurity plugins by changing the PluginID's in your registry:

HKLM\Software\(Wow6432Node)\GFI\ContentSecurity\MailSecurity\Plugins

As always, make sure you make a backup of your registry before any changes.

_____________________________

Regards,

Matthias Herberg - Product Specialist
GFI Software - www.gfi.com
Messaging, Content Security & Network Security Software

(in reply to Ytsejamer1)

Post #: 2

RE: Prioritizing Mail Security filters - 9.Jun.2009 12:24:57 PM

Ytsejamer1

Posts: 120
Joined: 7.Mar.2006
Status: offline

Exactly what I was looking for...thanks Matthias.

(in reply to mherberg)

Post #: 3