Feedback by UserVoice

Al Douglas

← Customer Feedback for Microsoft Office 365

My feedback

  1. DMARC Aggregate Reports from O365 Domains

    3,492 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Forgot password?
    Create a password
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    106 comments  ·  Office 365 Security & Compliance » Spam & Phishing  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Al Douglas supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Al Douglas commented  · 

    Please see the following workaround for now https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/tzink/2018/05/21/a-way-to-sort-of-approximate-dmarc-aggregate-reports-in-office-365/

  2. Advanced Threat Protection Whitelist 2019

    313 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Forgot password?
    Create a password
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    23 comments  ·  Office 365 Security & Compliance » Malware  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Al Douglas commented  · 

    The ETR method still appears to have the desired outcome from my testing, but it should be noted that the header added by the transport rule is not preserved for security reasons, but adding the header via ETR still appears to have the desired effect of skipping attachment detonation / safe links rewrite. If this is found not to be the case, please log a call with support.

  3. Admin Notifications for Zero Hour Auto Purge (ZAP) actions.

    210 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Forgot password?
    Create a password
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    8 comments  ·  Office 365 Security & Compliance » Malware  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Al Douglas supported this idea  · 

  4. Advanced Threat Protection (ATP) Whilelist - add wildcard support and/or extend the 320 character limit

    218 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Forgot password?
    Create a password
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    14 comments  ·  Office 365 Security & Compliance » Malware  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Al Douglas commented  · 

    This should be completed.

    https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/securitycompliance/set-up-atp-safe-links-policies

    Do not rewrite the following URLs
    Leaves URLs as they are. Keeps a custom list of safe URLs that don't need scanning for a specific group of email recipients in your organization. See Set up a custom "Do not rewrite" URLs list using ATP Safe Links for more details, including recent changes to support for wildcard asterisks

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Al Douglas commented  · 

    Hi all. Worth noting that Wildcards are now allowed (See https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Set-up-a-custom-do-not-rewrite-URLs-list-using-Office-365-ATP-safe-links-35dbfd99-da5a-422b-9b0e-c6caf3b645fa), and ETR's can also be used to prevent links from being re-written by the addition of a specific header (but only by the tenant administrator). Support can assist with these if required

  5. Exchange Online causes DKIM failures when transporting an email with a .eml attachment

    9 votes
    Vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Forgot password?
    Create a password
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Close
    Close
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  General  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Al Douglas commented  · 

    Hi Paul. There are still a number of factors which can have an adverse effect on DKIM signing, so for now the RFC guidance is that it is against RFC advice block or mark as spam due to a DKIM failure, https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6376 section 6.1

    "Survivability of signatures after transit is not guaranteed, and signatures can fail to verify through no fault of the Signer. Therefore, a Verifier SHOULD NOT treat a message that has one or more bad signatures and no good signatures differently from a message with no signature at all."

    These are being looked into as DKIM developments occur, but recipient systems should heed RFC guidance due to the known limitations

Feedback and Knowledge Base

(thinking…)

Related Sites