Quarantine (Web-Based)

433
Votes

Quarantine (Web-Based)

| Last activity: 2 months ago
Offer a new action to move spam-flagged emails directly into a quarantine. The quarantine could be reviewed by the end-user using a dedicated local website and falsely spam-flagged emails could be released from the quarantine. This would also allow the end-user to manage her own sender whitelists and blacklists.
1

Comments

This would be good for low-volume sites, but I cannot see an end user plowing through 10,000 spam messages in a month to look for a few good emails.
by Anonymous more than 10 years ago
@Anonymous: For practical and privacy reasons, the quarantine would be customized for end-users, i.e. an end-user would see his/her own quarantined emails only. I would expect a few dozens to a 1,000-2,000 quarantined emails a month for most user mailboxes. I personally agree that periodic reviews of the quarantine is a terrific way to waste time given normal circumstances, yet it can come super handy when you are expecting an email that just does not arrive. Currently, you have to ask your administrator (well, unless _you are_ the administrator :) if your email was blacklisted or not. Also, a web-based quarantine would provide an interface for managing per-user whitelists and blacklists (though the latter makes little sense).
by Peter Karsai (Vamsoft) more than 10 years ago
This would be a very good feature. It would be especially useful if there would be some way of adding only certain users to the quarantining or if the user could opt in for the quarantining. This would enable most users to work normally but allow users with special needs (such as patent applications handling) to be able to manually filter the spam. I would prefer web based instead of exchange folder based, because then it would be irrelevant of the user's exchange quota settings and could be managed separately.
by Teddie more than 10 years ago
I think this would be a great idea because it would eliminate having to opologize to people and ask them to resend the mail.
by aliton more than 10 years ago
Administrator managed quarantines are a terrible waste of manpower. Moving this function to the end user will reduce comlaints of missed email and free up IT personnel to work on more important tasks. If I could use all of my ten votes here, I would.
by Kansas more than 10 years ago
If the administrator could gain access to all the spam flagged emails that are in quarantine, this would be a great addition to this feature.
by dmcdonald more than 10 years ago
This sounds like a good idea. I've avoided putting ORF in most of my client offices (although I'm thrilled with it on my network) because there's no one on hand to review logs when there's a message missing. A quarantine with a daily notification digest via email would be even better.
by Lanwench more than 10 years ago
Perfectly! For a long time waited for something similar.
by Dryoma more than 10 years ago
We used to use GFI and this was a useful feature. Make it web based so that spam does not flood people's Exchange mailbox. It is easy to create a link to a web page from within Outlook. Also set an auto purge feature so that quarantined email that is older than 5 days will be deleted. This feature should be both global and user specified if possible. There is always a needy executive out there with "special case" scenarios. You might also be able to specify which types of test failures would be emailed to the users. For example you might want to email Greylisted messages but not blackholed ones.
by dfollis more than 10 years ago
we appreciate a webbased quarantine, managed by the user itself. an important feature would be a purge time to configure. probably an administrative account per domain should have access to the complete list of quarantined emails! this would reduced the daily support calls drastically. furthermore a requested feature would be to receive e.g daily (configurable) a mail with the content of the quarantine - users usually don´t look into the provided webbased quarantine, but directly call the it support. an email would be a kind of reminder for the user.
by CUS more than 10 years ago
I would vote the Web-based solution down - in favor for the "Quarantine (Exchange Folder-Based)" suggestion. Please see my comment under that feature.
by Luis more than 10 years ago
To further elaborate on post 11: Maintaining an additional dedicated Web-site implies additional backup-tasks, additional cleanup when a user in no longer active, additional configuration for access-rights etc. An Exchange-folder based Quarantine would be much easier to manage as a whole.
by Luis more than 10 years ago
If the web based function were to be added, it would even be possible to send a URL with a "message id token" as part of the 5.x.x rejection message. The sending mail server will generate a bounce message anyway to the sender. If the bounce message contains a "release this email" URL, then a human-sent message could be released by the sender. (I'm not suggesting we should generate our own "confirmation" messages, because that would just add to the back-scatter and offend the poor people who were joe-jobbed).
by Andy Schmidt more than 10 years ago
Great idea! The only suggestion I have on a web based solution is the ability to set how far back users can look. For example, users can only retrieve items from the last X hours or days. This would minimize the amount of junk that users need to sift through each time they logon.
by Lighthouse more than 10 years ago
Not a good idea,this is totally useless for end user, I think
by jhonlone more than 10 years ago
This would be very useful, and I 2nd the idea to have a configurable time limit such as 14 days for junk email to get flushed. Web based would be best, just plug it in to IIS.
by jhyde more than 10 years ago
The ability to have some sort of quarantine is priceless. An email blocked or bounced for one of many reasons should not just dissappear without the ability to be retrieved. I often have users asking if a lost email which is important cant be retreived, but alas it is gone forever. So while I don't necessarily think end users should be able to access quarantine, the ability to access it should be there.
by Rudiger 9 years ago
We have seen similar ideas in Hardware Spam Boxes. I love the idea - and support it - but end users forget it is there and forget to check it.
by Anonymous 9 years ago
I like the idea very much, as this would eliminate the use of a separate quarantine-manager like we do now (use ORF for greylisting and Forefront for Spam and quarantine). So it would be very wise to provide separate quarantine-options for each test. We run approx. 150 mailboxes and digging through the quarantine-area is currently done in a few minutes, thanks to greylisting and recipient-validation policies.
by Matthias 9 years ago
Yes, indeed, a good feature not to be sidelooked. BTW, Yahoo mail, and several others, DO provide this feature already. I think that there should be a user-clear option of activating it / disabling it. Server-based defaults could, of course, depend on the Company policy, but the delegated mailbox is usually configured by its User.
by [email protected] 9 years ago
I wouldn't use this for spam, I like the fact that it does so much 'arrival' blocking. However the attachment blocking feature needs this - I have one client in particular who wants some files blocked but might want to let some through manually.
by thomasrw 9 years ago
This would be a real nice feature as long as you can set who may access/use it and who's not. Allso for hosted enviroments it sounds great.
by Marco 9 years ago
I like the fact that there is no Quarantine and that the email is either allowed or rejected. Adding a quarantine area means I get more work to do and I don't want that. Not sure how to Not Vote for a feature, but consider me Not Voting for this one.
by Ahardisty 9 years ago
While this feature would add some work to the Administrator, not allowing individual users to manage their own white and black lists is crazy, especially for us as we're running ORF in a multi-tenant hosted Exchange environment. This one feature would be the ideal addition to really round out the client's self management of their OU and/or individual mailboxes.
by digital.hybrid 9 years ago
I think it is the only thing missing from ORF. Giving the user the choice is always good. More admin work.... maybe, maybe not.
by Sgeronimi 9 years ago
An *optional* quarantine function is the only thing missing from ORF. It should be configurable ON or OFF at the server level, and at a User or Group level. If enabled at the server level, there should be default that can be set at that level, with the option for an end-user to override certain settings like frequency of notification (hourly, daily, weekly), and age of quarantine (7 days, 10 days, 30 days). If a quarantine is enabled for any user, an administrator should be able to search the quarantine globally as an option. The primary mechanism should be the end-user. Lastly, it should be possible to delegate the spam notifications to a different user on a per user or per group basis. (Someone's personal assistant gets their spam notifications instead of the executive getting it). ASB: http://xeesm.com/AndrewBaker
by ASB 9 years ago
We create a user called SpamMan and redirect rejected emails to that user BUT the big downside is that all emails get mixed together in one mailbox. Having individual user holding areas with time and/or count limitations for auto delete would be great.
by puterman 8 years ago
@puterman: you can already achieve this by using IMF / Content Filter Agent of Exchange (i.e. to redirect emails blacklisted and tagged by ORF to each recipients' Junk folder), see our guide at http://www.vamsoft.com/downloads/imfexchange2003guide.zip for instructions. If you have Exchange 2007/2010, see our blog post at http://blog.vamsoft.com/2009/09/30/tales-from-tech-support-part-7-orf-and-scl-scoring/ AFAIK you can also configure expiration for these items somehow, though I understand that a "native" quarantine feature would be much easier to setup.
by Krisztian Fekete (Vamsoft) 8 years ago
The administrator should be able to see all and the end user just his/her. Some users have special needs and it would be grate if they could whitelist och blacklist regarding to their needs. Moves the administration to the enduser.
by Mikael 8 years ago
Will this web-interface be translated to different languages? Will the program interface be translated to different languages also?
by Anton L. 8 years ago
@Anton L.: localization is a good idea for the web interface of the quarantine, and I think it can be implemented quite easily: I will mention this to our developers. As for the localizing the GUI of ORF, that's a bit more complicated issue: ORF was not developed with localization in mind, so the English texts are hard-coded in current versions. Even if we change this in future versions, ORF users would also expect technical support in these languages (which ORF is translated to). We are aware of the demand for the localized version (especially in Russia), and we are seeking solutions to meet these demands in the future.
by Krisztian Fekete (Vamsoft) 8 years ago
@Krisztian: Thanks for your answer. I'am glad to know it. Because "english only" interface of the web interface of the quarantine will be absolutely useless to russian users, employees of our company. Only few of them can understand english language. :( It would be hard to teach them how to use it in english language. But it is highly needed and will be appreciated.
by Anton L. 8 years ago
Hello! I wonder, when it will be ready? :) I thought it would be ready with the 5.0 version of ORF. :) I am not sure that this post is suitable here, but there are (didn't find) no post, concerning Quarantine on the ORF Forums.
by Anton L. 6 years ago
My opinion remains the same 2 years later. :) This is still the most critical feature missing from ORF... -ASB: http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker
by andrew.baker 6 years ago
Where this feature is going to be implemented. This is crucial to manage the spam. I have a lot of users they lost their good email and they have to contact theirs customers to ask for resend the email. Please implement this feature ASAP.
by fernando.torres 6 years ago
Can we see this functionality in v5.2? And can we get it within 3-6 months, please? This would make an already awesome product totally indispensable. And those who don't care for it need not turn it on. I need to be able to manage some levels of SPAM without just rejecting them all outright, or letting them get back to the Exchange server.
by andrew.baker 6 years ago
Arg,,,I read 'quarantine' in the new feature notes for the new 5.2 and got really excited because I thought this long-awaited feature had finally been implement -- but no! It's only for attachments! What?? Is there any ETA on the whole email web-based quarantine feature? That would make me renew my software maintenance agreement as a compelling feature for sure.
by stuart.rowe 5 years ago
Hi Stuart, That's exactly how I felt when I saw the release notes for v5.2, and like you, I was duly dissapointed. And, my SMA is ready for renewal in 2 days. Unfortunately, as otherwise awesome as this product is without this feature, I absolutely need it for my environment or I have to keep things too loose on the filter side. No one else seems to accept the fact that false positives are deadly if the messages can only be rejected, and I'm not looking to do client-side filtering. I have to move on, and I'm going to adopt a hosted email security solution to get maximum benefit for my funds. I'm really disappointed, as I fully expected to be able to stay with ORF. -ASB: http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker
by andrew.baker 5 years ago
I think our IT department now spends more time 'managing' our users 'where is my email I was expecting?', than ever and its only getting worse as business becomes 'mission critical' using email communication with clients. I hope the Vamsoft crew is working hard on this feature? It's an otherwise terrific product!
by Barry George 5 years ago
Guys, please tell us! When the Quarantine will be implemented?
by aleksey.oblov 4 years ago
Nooooooo!!! NO NO NO!!! Reject, reject, reject. The whole point is to set up ORF so it doesn't catch false positives - this is relatively easy to do. Get it set up correctly and REJECT e-mail. Otherwise you just encourage more and more. Put a message in the rejection text giving your phone number just in case. Quarantine also means tonnes or data piles up, gets ignored, and users complain about e-mails that has dissapeared, because they don't check or pay attention to the quarantine. Rejection stops more and more junk coming through as you are considered a legitimate target if you accept the message, plus hogs bandwitch etc. If you want advice on how to set this up so your false positives are near zero contact us. http://ingenious.co.uk Jez
by jez.nolan2 4 years ago
I'm saddened that this one feature is so incredibly popular, yet remains the one that is no closer to being delivered. Oh, and for all the naysayers, we would like the feature to be OPTIONAL. An OPTIONAL feature that is not turned on will not use any disk space or CPU resources. The people requesting the feature have already determined that the resource requirements would be worth the value of the functionality. Those who don't see value in a quarantine do not need to turn it on, and will obviously fail to incur any penalties. There are plenty of legitimate scenarios where automated external email gets rejected for one reason or another, and now cannot easily be resent. This is not some novel feature -- very many antispam products have managed to get this feature implemented in a useful way over the years. The lack of this feature is the ONLY reason why I have not renewed my ORF license in over 2 years. This one feature would be worth a renewal for me. -ASB: http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker
by andrew.baker 3 years ago
This feature request is from 8 years ago and is obviously hugely popular - why isn't it incorporated as a feature already?
by stuart.rowe 2 years ago
is this feature coming or just a wish ?
by belalalali 1 year ago
seems to the feature voting is a bogus. same for ipv6 support. but the missing ipv6 support is more a bug than a missing feature
by simon.taeuber 6 months ago

My Comment

Please sign in or sign up to comment.
hnp1 | hnp2