New features...

jbaxter_ironport · ‎02-24-2005

So, I thought I'd try out a poll, and see what features people would like to see in the IronPort C-Series applicances...

Not sure how the poll functions works, and if other people can add options, I guess we'll see.

For me, I *definitely* want to see conversational LDAP bounces - so if a user is unknown via LDAP query, it rejects the message during the conversations, not later during the work process, when it has to generate a non-deliverable message (which causes all sorts of problems).

I'd also be interested in having the IronPort support multiple virus-scan engines, so we could load it up with Sophos, Symantec, Trend, Kaspersky, whatever we choose, for added protection in depth.

beetle_ironport · ‎02-24-2005

wheee! first post.

for us centralized reporting (for multiple appliances) is a must. while ironport logging is much improved, it is still painful to try to find specific message logs. I like the idea of the central console, but it has to scale to keep up with many machines and tens of millions of messages.

jbaxter_ironport · ‎02-25-2005

I'd agree... a nice central appliance to manage all the other appliances (centralized management and reporting) would be very nice.

If it isn't processing mail traffic, hopefully it would have enough horsepower to handle it. If a stupid Windows box can do it for the mail flow central product (don't get me started on that), then a nice harded *nix box should be able to do it fine.

One problem would of course be disk space. I think IronPort is definitely going to have to come up with some sort of external storage solution. Maybe they can grab a Dell PowerVault, pull the sides off, slap some nice metallic covers on it and call it an "expansion storage unit". Or if they really wanted to have fun, make it work with an EMC SAN - support one or two HBAs, etc.

mark_ironport · ‎02-25-2005

I don't want to influence the poll but we are looking into putting conversational LDAP into an upcoming AsyncOS 4.0 release. We're finalizing how it will interact with new connections while in DHAP. When we have the spec in a more reasonable form, I'll post portions of the spec here for comments.

jbaxter_ironport · ‎02-25-2005

I know you are. That's one of the reasons it was a poll option. ;)

Get that done. We need it. :)

Erich_ironport · ‎02-25-2005

Mark - Yeah, 4.0.7 (early-May), believe me we are all in suspense... :P We use DHAP very aggressively and still send around a million NDRs daily, ugly doesn't even describe it, except before IronPort is was worse, much worse :D .

Erich

mark_ironport · ‎02-25-2005

Heh...here I was trying to be careful and not to commit to a release number or date...but everyone else already knows about it. At least we'll have plenty of beta sites to test it out! :-)

jbaxter_ironport · ‎02-26-2005

Yes, we know all. Keep telling us stuff... hiding upcoming featues is silly, cause we'll all find out anyways. :)

And yes, conversational LDAP bounces. We need them. Desperately.

shannon.hagan · ‎03-11-2005

The list seems a little small for the voting can you change the list.

How about things like:
Configurable NDR?
Configurable accounts to send the NDRs from?
The ability to view the outgoing queue based on listeners and not all combined?
The ability to restrict ldap queries for ldap accept/routing for only certain domains?

I could think of others ....

jbaxter_ironport · ‎03-11-2005

Yeah, I was hoping that people could add options to it on their own, but it doesn't look like it. I guess posting on the reply thread is just better..

ian_ironport · ‎04-05-2005

I'd love to see central configuration of multiple Ironports working properly. I'm not really worried if this is integrated with a central reporting tool as different people need to use mesage tracking compared to changing the appliance settings. A unified system would have to provide different roles for message tracking, managing appliances (read-only, see the status of the gateways) and read-write (set new rules/policies).

Mailflow central (latest version) seems good to me but I'm not sure how far it will scale up to handle people with bigger mail throughputs.

atucker_ironport · ‎04-11-2005

Exposure of via SNMP of internal Ironport Counters (messages per minute, quere size, blah, blah blah).

Failover capability (virtual IP, heartbeat, etc...)

GUI based searching through log files (comeon guys, this is basic)

different action based on different virus type (just kill the mass mailers, but clean infected word documents).

-Adam

atucker_ironport · ‎04-22-2005

how about a "diagnostic" page that will list the SBRS scores of the domains that the ironport is currently handling. Plus any information on things you can do to help your handling of email/raising your SBRS score (kinda like the info you get if you email dnsckeck@ironport.com).

Also it would be nice if the ironport could generate an email if your score changes, so that incase something happens like what is spelled out on the main page blog, you will have some advanced notice and can take preemptive actions.

usommer_ironport · ‎04-24-2005

here are some features, that i would like to see in upcoming Releases:

- Throtteling based on receiving or sending E-Mail addresses
- the ability to rewrite special headers based on their contents (stripping of received headers isnt just a good idea)
- validation of the helo response of the sending machine in the HAT. (Many viruses just fake our own helo message which makes them easy to detect)

regards

Uwe Sommer
(germany)

usommer_ironport · ‎04-25-2005

more missing features:

Mailrouting with priorisation (MX with prioritynumbers) for delivering mails to be able to specify backup hosts only in case the primary destination fails.

regards

Uwe Sommer