Is there a way to disable Antispam permanently?

Discussion in 'ESET Smart Security' started by Adramalech, Oct 28, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    Hi there,


    By disabling I really mean 'disabling' without being warned locally or by RA that the protection status is not optimal.


    There situations that this might be intentional.


    Thanks
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2008
  2. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Sure . Simply disable integration in the mails clients and this will completely disable ESS's anti-spam , it will not be able to filter unsolicated mail again . Note that the mail client application (Windows Live , Outlook Express or Office Outlook) must be restarted so that the changes take effect .

    You can apply the change either locally or with a cfg file pushed from ERA
     

    Attached Files:

  3. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    Hi H-techboy,

    Thanks, it's not exactly what I imagined (virus checking will be disabled to) but it will work for what I have in mind right now.


    A real anti spam disable option is still highly welcome!
     
  4. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    What kind of real disable do you imagineo_O o_O
     
  5. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    No , not really . Do you use POP3 ? If so , mail checking will still be present . Even if no POP3 is in use (IMAP ,for example) real-time file system protection will still be active
     
  6. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    Is this a serious question?
    An option to just turn off/on anti spam while still being able to virus check MAPI (MS Exchange / outlook).


    @Hi-tech boy

    No, it's a corporate environment (MS Exchange / Outlook). We're having some strange kind of performance issue but only with outlook.

    The only real connection between the two that I can see is anti spam which hasn't been there with version 2.x.


    I've already informed Eset support but there's not been much useful information. I'm not complaining, but I'm trying to isolate the problem and implement a solution while maintaining all intended functionality.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2008
  7. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    See, your email is still being checked for viruses, whether you have this email scanner gimmick enabled or not... Try to save or open an infected attachment and see for yourself. Also, all my email accounts I use require TLS or SSL (the email scanner doesn't do anything useful there; the same goes for HTTPS traffic and also those web shields out there), plus I use IMAP only (again, the email scanner doesn't do anything useful there). On that note, if you are using Exchange, the virus scanning and spam filtering should be done there and not on clients.
     
  8. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    Ok thanks, but no need to tell me the obvious...

    This is being done. Ever heard of several protection layers?
    I'm no n00b to the business, ok? So please try to think of something less obvious.
     
  9. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    You have completely snipped the "less obvious" part which tells you that the email stuff will still get checked whenever you try to open or save it, so I'd suggest re-reading my previous post. I also find it amazing that people value their security so much that they insist on vendors implementing similar gimmicks, yet at the same time they happily send out their passwords in clear text for anyone to sniff them.
     
  10. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    Ok, I have read your post, and not just yet.
    What your saying with checking https connections and attachments is because of real time protection. You know that https connections cannot be intercepted without presenting the initial client a proxy https tunnel, which means that there are indeed two tunnels.

    That's actually not the same if you know what I mean.
    Anyhow, the point is, even though I'm a big supporter of their product and in fact I'm the reason why we're running it here there are possible infections that can occur even though RT-protection was triggered. Virtumonde is a good example. Ever experienced something like this? I did. So it's best to filter such threads as soon as possible before the code has a chance to run or to be executed.


    And, I totally agree on the security point but we're all but humans and we make errors. It's not possible, at least not for me, to control every aspect of security since IT people can also be a thread.
    And who is telling you the we send password in clear except for cases where it's acceptable under certain circumstances?


    Besides, implementing and option is a gimmick? Wow, I don't no how they programmed it but I definitely don't think this that much of work.
     
  11. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    I guess we'll agree to disagree.

    1/ The fact that people massively use and demand similar features (not only w/ NOD32 but other products as well) clearly proves that they don't use POP3S, IMAPS nor SMTPS (unless you want to explain this as "placebo" effect.) So, anyone can sniff the email content as they download it, and worse yet anyone can get their mailbox credentials. Haven't noticed massive requests for SSL/TLS support here either. Funny.

    2/ The lack of IMAP support outside of Outlook - well this is funny as well. (I personally wouldn't use POP3 any more. No need to store gigabytes of stuff on local drive plus I need access to email from multiple places and multiple computers. Not to mention the notorious and infamous M$ Outlook issues w/ big PST files.) Back to the topic - if you read those threads, you'll notice moderators and ESET staff basically tell people that "well, we don't support IMAP but the realtime component will catch infected stuff anyway so it doesn't matter". Here's another example.. So, what goes? The POP3 scanner is a musthave feature used for marketing, but you don't need anything like this for IMAP? Huh, I guess gimmick was the correct term here. :p

    3/ As for the antispam, sure it could have a separate checkbox; shrug. I personally tested this for a while and I must say that other freeware solutions offer better results for me. This will always be individual experience, but for the stuff I'm using there have been too many false positives (almost 20%.) So, this is a feature I can definitely live without. ;)
     
  12. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    To be honest, I don't even know what you're talking about.

    I clearly said that we're using Exchange which indicates that we're using (any big company does) MAPI. You'll find some explanation about it here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/245421h5(VS.80).aspx
    and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAPI


    MAPI has almost nothing in common with POP3 or IMAP, and it uses Kerberos 5 or NTLM for authentication, which in the case of Kerberos is secure enough without SSL/TLS. But that's not even the point of this thread.


    We have a corporate spam filter in place that is outside of our responsibility. It's fairly good but as everything not perfect and therefore, we'd like to use the built -in function. What's wrong with that, especially since we've made far more positive results with it than you (no false positives so far).

    And to say it again, I'd wish they'd implemented a feature to just turn of anti spam. Nothing else. And, it's a request. If I don't say it it might never happen.
    They can still decide to not do it....
     
  13. doktornotor

    doktornotor Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Posts:
    2,047
    I know what's MAPI. I'm just explaining my position on these email scanner features, since you were not happy with disabling it altogether.

    Totally confused now. So, you want to use the antispam and are requesting a feature to disable it permanently? Hmmm... o_O :doubt: o_O

    Frankly, I'd prefer having a feature to not install any of these features at all (be it web shield, email scanner or antispam). No need to clutter the GUI with unused stuff.
     
  14. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    I'd like to use it but if it's making that much trouble in our environment, so be it. I need it to test. If it turns out to be true that anti spam is the cause I wouldn't want to disable MAPI checks at the same time. And that's my problem with it.


    Full ACK on that, but again, this is not the case. It's either all or nothing with ESS.
     
  15. agoretsky

    agoretsky Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,032
    Location:
    California
    Hello,

    Your request to permanently disable the antispam feature of ESET Smart Security has been noted and is being considered for a future release.

    Regards,

    Aryeh Goretsky

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.