SjoerdV
My feedback
-
20 votes3 comments · Microsoft Information Protection (MIP) » Data Loss Prevention (DLP) · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
0 votesSjoerdV
shared this idea
·
-
3 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment -
66 votes3 comments · Office 365 Security & Compliance » Information Governance and Records Management · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
Got this back from MS Support on the subject on 10 Feb 2020:
"Further to my previous message there are unfortunately no plans to increase the inclusion/exclusion limit for retention policies."SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
Indeed we need these limits raised please. Today everything is a Group or a Site Collection of its own. Nested sites are not recommended as well, so please make these limits more practical.
On a side note, I am quickly running out of votes here as Microsoft insists on adding stuff nobody asked for but fails to fix stuff that is desperately needed. Please listen to your communicty or disband the site altogether.
-
48 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
It should be at least configurable to disallow member email deletion
-
398 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
87 votes11 comments · Microsoft Information Protection (MIP) » Data Loss Prevention (DLP) · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
248 votes9 comments · Office 365 Security & Compliance » Advanced Security Management · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
You can actually achieve this already with Azure AD Conditional Access App Control (Block Downloads setting) which will make use of Cloud App Security.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory/conditional-access/controls#session-controls
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/cloud-app-security/proxy-intro-aad#supported-apps-and-clients -
36 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
With us the OneDrive thing worked, but some Groups gave this error (but not all groups, btw)
-
88 votes6 comments · Office 365 Security & Compliance » Information Governance and Records Management · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
This is very much needed, I have many customers with over 1000 projects and each should be assigned (or excluded) to a different retention policy scheme. This limit needs to be increased asap, as the current limit is simply not realistic. Also the Site Collection entity is the new standard for years now (de-emphasizing enormous sub site structures in one SC), so limits on these entities should be increased as well.
SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
436 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
'By Design'... indeed. Please change this to the intuitive and logical way of interpreting this column.
-
75 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
1,166 votes
We are currently working on automatically removing hidden/disabled users from the org chart.
SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
This is really getting rediculous, 2.5 years and no action on this... Foreign Principles, Cloud Meeting Rooms, all kinds of 'users', which are no users at all. It kind of bugs me that a corporate directory has 'by default' so much waste.
-
274 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
709 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
There is a difference between disabling and hiding the buttons. I have configurered a couple of flows on a list that are being triggered by buttons through 'column formatting', they should keep working of course so disabling flow alltogether on the site is not an option, but I would like the abilitiy to start these flows from the command bar to be removed for obvious reasons.
-
635 votes41 comments · Office 365 Security & Compliance » Information Governance and Records Management · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
Why must user experiece always be impacted when enabling a seemingly background process like a retention policy... please fix asap
SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
36 votes7 comments · Microsoft Information Protection (MIP) » Data Loss Prevention (DLP) · Flag idea as inappropriate… · Admin →
An error occurred while saving the comment SjoerdV
commented
We have a lot of false positives on the default postmaster address as a sender, which does not have mailbox. mails containing Undeliverable and X-Microsoft-Antispam-Untrusted are being seen as a DLP policy hit on the default GDPR rules ... there are really far to much false positives and no tools to filter those out. Kind of a sucky experience.
In general I find the 'wizard system' to be poorly designed, they require far to much clicking and waiting. Overall I am not fond of Security and Compliance Centers, where is the responsiveness, where is the speed??? It's like going back 10 year
SjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
99 votes
-
574 votesSjoerdV
supported this idea
·
-
208 votes
I like this idea! There is obviously a gap between Public and Private Teams. I would like to see some kind of policy setting just like the ‘Prevent O365 Group Creation’ method that would prevent a certain group of internal users to be able join any team without approval and that any O365 Group mailbox (particularly Public O365 Group mailboxes!) is not accessible at all until approval to join has been given. All Teams Workloads should of course respect that policy. This all would be required to accommodate temporary personnel without comprehensive nda’s