jadorwin

This is an Eset problem. I have configured correctly Firefox and If I uninstall ESET everything is working perfectly and secure SNI is enabled (you can see that in the first screen capture). When ESET is installed and acting as an SSL proxy, then it's not working anymore.

Description: Support Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) with SSL Detail: I would like that when "analyze SSL/TLS connection" is enabled and that the browser support ECH like Firefox, then ESET use ECH to connect to websites. Check https://www.cloudflare.com/ssl/encrypted-sni/ with and without ESET analyzing SSL/TLS connection.

Description: Eset Mail Quarantine Report include all email from "additional access rights" in the web interface config section Detail: In the web interface, we can add additional access rights to a user. Can you add the possibility to take into account these rights for the email quarantine report (so that what's on the email is the same as what’s on the quarantine web interface).

It's not easy to create a rule that always hit... If it was possible, I would have done it to reject the messages.... I will think about it.

Hi, That’s strange. I have a rule in place like in the snapshot attached to this message but I still receive email in outlook with these headers: But you are right, in exchange log, the email address is in the RCPT TO: So why eset is not rejecting the email with the rule attached to this post ? To be clear, it's always when the email is in BCC in outlook that the rule is not working. Br,

Description: Eset Mail Security recipient rule condition for bcc recipient Detail: When I create a "recipient rule condition" for a rule, it did not check in the bcc field. Can you add an option so that the "rule recipient condition" also applies to the content of the bcc header field ?

Hi, When I create a "recipient rule condition" for a rule, it did not check in the bcc field. Is it normal ? If yes, can you add an option so that the "rule recipient condition" also applies to the content of the bcc header field ? Br,

Hello, I confirm that I have the same problem. I never understood why a soft fail was interpreted by a fail at the level of ESET. I think there should be way to nuance the treatment of an SPF result (main configuration + rules) following a soft or hard fail.

Hi, Is there a way to include in the user's quarantine report email all recipients for which the user has "delegate access" in the access rights of the web interface? Br,

Hi, "Recommended settings" link is not working indeed. I confirm the answer from Marcos. I opened (firewall) communication to the spécific IPs (port 53535) in the antispam section for version 5 and higher (https://support.eset.com/kb332/#antispam) and the message have disapear shortly after (but not immediately). Br,

Thanks for your quick answer. Could be great to have an improvement in this area for future release :)

Hi, We are using ESET Mail Security v7 for Exchange. Is there a way to allow a user to manage the quarantine for a whole domain name (*@domain.com) ? We have a lot of mail domains with a lot of mailing lists and we can't create a "delegated access" for each mailing lists (and maintain efficiently the access rights). Br,

Hi, All messages from "Humble Bundle <contact@mailer.humblebundle.com>" send from IP 52.40.63.36 are tag with a "SPF Fail" by ESET but if I check the IP with the SPF record (here for example: https://mxtoolbox.com/SuperTool.aspx?action=spf%3amailer.humblebundle.com%3a52.40.63.36&run=toolpage) the IP seems to be good for the SPF check. I have this kind of error for other "legitimate" sender. Br,

Thanks for the info. Br,

Hi, When I reboot the server (Windows server 2016 + Exchange 2016) I have an error in ESET log : I have the last version of ESET Mail Security installed. Is it a problem (ESET seems to work) ? Br,

Hi, Is it possible to quarantine spam message AND send a NDR to the sender ? Br,

OK. I will try that. Thanks, Br,

Hi, I have a problem with UDP ports and ekrn.exe. After 2 or 3 days, my server does not have UDP ports available anymore. It seems that ekrn.exe opens a LOT of UDP ports and never release them. The local DNS server (which is the default DNS server for this computer) opens a lot of UDP ports too (ekrn.exe seems to communicate with it). If I reboot the computer, everything comes back to normal but the number of used UDP ports start growing immediately. Can you give me a link to the last version of EMSX 6.3 to see if it resolves the problem ? Br,

Hi filips, Great that you find and fixed a bug. I will try to catch some mail from smtp21.email4-beyond.com with the problem but it's a problem that I found in EMSX logs as these mails are not sent to me and I can't ask the user easily to send me the problematic email. I will keep in touch. Br,

Hi, Adding the condition resolve the problem. Thanks. Yes, our domain name has SPF, DKIM and DMARC records for 2 years. Everything is working (especially Gmail accept our mail and check everything). Another remark : I have strange rejection with DKIM too with mail coming from smtp21.email4-beyond.com, mail1.eventbrite.com and other legitimate domain. I'm quite sure that these emails are good but maybe they misconfigured their server (but it's strange from big services relying on email). Anyway, many many thanks for implementing these SPF, DKIM DMARC checks. I was eagerly waiting for them. Br,

Hi, I just upgrade to ESET Email Security for exchange 6.4. I create a rule to delete email with bad SPF result. I have some services sending email by SMTP. These services authenticate themselves with the SMTP service and send emails with a FROM like service@company.com TO user@company.com. These emails are erased with a false result from the SPF check and this is not correct. FYI I select in the mail transport option that authenticated users are not scanned with the antispam module. In fact, every email send by SMTP (by authenticated users to an internal user) is rejected with a false result from SPF. Is it normal ? Seems strange to me. Br,