Hans Roodenburg

My feedback

  1. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  GFI MailEssentials » Generic  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg shared this idea  · 
  2. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2010-09-02]
    We have some customers working with the ISP as a backup for their email. Sometimes they also scan for virusses and spam, while adding an X-header afterwards. Whitelist based on X-header-value is a nice option in this case, so if scanned and X-header=%value%, then it is safe to pass along, but keep directory harvesting, bayesian, etc in the loop. ISP's don't keep track of all, like with MAX MAIL.
    So treat those emails as they would have been scanned by MAX MAIL, but make the value editable...

    Hans Roodenburg shared this idea  · 
  3. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2010-07-26]
    This is for the Pop2Exchange connector I assume? Is this not going to put a lot of stress on the POP-mailbox at the ISP, since this is mostly used for companies...

  4. 0 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-09-29]
    I think this calls for a supportcase to find out why the product detects so many false positives in the first place. Our cases from resellers/end-users are practically none and in most cases this is only one or two mails per month FP.
    It might be so many things that make the wrong decision. Is there a partner that could help you, or did you contact GFI Support for this?

    Björn

  5. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-09-29]
    Additional to http://ideas.gfi.com/a/dtd/26826-4178

    Can this be incorporated please? So auto-discovery of MX-records every x hours (and maybe notification if it changes) and use of IP-ranges/subnets, and in all cases, use an external DNS-server, if DNS is set to use local.

  6. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  5 comments  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-10-06]
    I understand you want to receive and tag the email that is caught via greylisting right?
    The concept of greylisting is that you do not receive the whole email in the first try, but in the second one. In this case, you can not tag the email in this first try, since it was not received the first time, but is the second time it is offered to you.
    In the first try the connection is dropped with (mostly) error 451, so a valid mailserver will retry (*), a spammer will drop the mail and goes on to the next.
    If a mailserver/domain is on the whitelist, it is automatically allowed to pass the message, but it will still be checked by SPF (if enabled).

    You can read more here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greylisting

    Björn Leenen
    DCCNL

    * then the server is on the 'whitelist' for 32 days if I recall correctly.

    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-10-06]
    Well there should not be false positives, since the mechanism is only caching the first connection and if the sending mailserver returns to the receiving mailserver, then it is approved.
    You could copy all sent items of general mailboxes in the public folder (Add to whitelist) and wait until these are processed. See Attachement above for the mechanism of greylisting.
    Björn

    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-10-06]
    In that case, greylisting is not advisable to use. Also people (sending mail servers) using a smart host that does not publish itself under the smarthostname, but under the separate node name will suffer from problems.
    I do understand that a list of greylisted servers/domains/... is nice to have, so admins can react to this and put the email-address or domain on the whitelist (to avoid further filtering). I believe there is a greylisting log that you can enable, but if this is all that readable... I've just turned it on (logging) and it is somewhat readable, but not for the end-user behind the computer.

  7. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-10-26]
    For all I know there is a way around this (use on your OWN RISK): open the config.mdb on Access. Open table Actions and look for usrexist. Here you could set the FakeNDR to 1 and it will be sent.
    I would consult GFI Support for this too.

  8. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2012-05-10]
    One remark about this, the P2E module logs in and downloads the emails into the pickup folder of Exchange (or IIS). If your POP-client downloads them from there, it can do whatever you want with it, depending on the rules that you make for the separate accounts. Looks like you are using ME for 'retail anti-spam' for the POP3-accounts.

  9. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI MailEssentials  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  10. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI WebMonitor  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2010-06-15]
    No one using Webmon for filtering world championship soccer?

  11. 0 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  15 comments  ·  GFI WebMonitor  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2012-03-29]
    Hello Willem, maybe I can interest you in another approach: Web Browsing Quota Policies (Webmon 2012). Here you can set a number of hours or minutes one could visit categories you might not want them to browse during the working hours. These are used per day and not per timeslot; more flexible and has a number you can set manually (so even 7 minutes of facebook is possible then ;) )

  12. 4 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI WebMonitor  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2012-08-29]
    One of our larger Webmon-accounts asked us to post a change request. It has to do with authentication.
    The first time you start up 'Internet' for that day, one is presented with a splash/disclaimer where you need to login AND approve before you can continue. The account to be used is a regular domain account, just as always. After this there is a timeout to be set to allow, before re-authenticating again. This is handy to use when you have loads of guests on your network AND you want a connection to have a limited time to use the filters. Also making it easier to let people be aware of the filters...

  13. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI Archiver  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2010-09-02]
    Maybe to add to this idea: it might be thinkable to put all unlinkable emails in the database, as it should (so based on time), but keep them only visible for, for example, the admin-group labeled "to be sorted". Users in this group can sort out email that have been sent to mail-enabled distribution-groups that do not exist anymore, or put emails from ex-employees in the respective managers mailbox. Sorting this out in the unclassified folder is 'not easy'. Or make a front end, that translates this folder into a web based interface, to make things easy.

  14. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  6 comments  ·  GFI Archiver  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-02-23]
    @Scott and@Community Member:
    As Brian mentioned it is not possible to put yourself in the OWA-site. Would it be helpful if the ./MailArchiver-root include the functionality of the OWA-root? In other words: access to your archive is just as good as the realtime emailflow in OWA (maybe even better) but now it has access to agenda, contacts, todo, and while GFI's on it even access to your Sharepoint-root (sorry Brian a bit more work, but then you at least earn your vacation ;)).
    This might all be not so difficult (from a non-developers perspective). Fill-in the OWA-root and the MAR-login-credentials can be copied to this OWA-session, does this sound do-able? In case you have multiple MBX-servers, type in the CA-server.

  15. 2 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI Archiver  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2012-04-02]
    Please translate into English, since it is an international idea-platform.

  16. 3 votes
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  3 comments  ·  GFI Archiver  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2012-05-10]
    I think with the new reporting module from Webmonitor, there should be an option to make more projections for this and other usages as well. The MailInsight-module will be expanded with additional reports I heared from GFI, but I don't know with what features specifically.

  17. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    started  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI LanGuard  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2010-11-10]
    Less than half a year left on the IP4-supply, so... Any idea for this?

  18. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI LanGuard  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-10-26]
    Most of the times WMIC can be used, but the agent needs to determine the brand, so it can ask these details from the BIOS (as with MAX RM).

  19. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Collecting Feedback  ·  2 comments  ·  GFI LanGuard  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2012-05-11]
    I agree, since in some cases the compliancy does not allow you to have these shares, but also sometimes file and print-sharing as a component is not installed on a NIC (only IP)

  20. 1 vote
    Sign in
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Reviewed  ·  1 comment  ·  GFI FaxMaker  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Hans Roodenburg commented  · 

    [Comment date: 2011-05-30]
    Is this a valid feature request, I think it is, but apparently it is not picked up by development. I can not imagine, I am the only one with this issue.

    Hans Roodenburg supported this idea  · 
    Hans Roodenburg shared this idea  · 
← Previous 1 3

Feedback and Knowledge Base