Do you recognize a good idea when you see one? We want to hear from you!
Header Image

I suggest you ...

MailSecurity: IMAP Proxy

Implement an IMAP proxy. Provides filtering and scanning functionality for those that use this type of mail retrieval. It rounds out our offering to include all 3 of the major ways users access mailboxes.

1,243 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    Gert HansenGert Hansen shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
    Mark DooreyMark Doorey shared a merged idea: IMAP SSL Port 993 For Mac Mail  ·   · 
    Michael ReipkeMichael Reipke shared a merged idea: Reverse IMAP / IMAPS Proxy  ·   · 

    78 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • GDF ACE6GDF ACE6 commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In the era of the new malware cryptolocker family, Sophos is not proteting email's customers coming from IMAP protocol, that's absurd, in the long run many customers could switch from Sophos. At least provide a workaround to offload antivirus and spam scanning on the client machine.

      • OlafOlaf commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Very disappointed and incorrect communication, the top rated feature request has NOT been implemented.

      • Hi Jeff,

        yes this has been in the top ten requested features, not implementing this for UTM 9 however does not mean that we are not taking this into account.
        However there is more to consider, what effort is required to do this, what other improvements will we miss because of doing this...
        This evaluation has caused it not to be part of UTM 9 until now. It is very unlikely that we will be able to implement it anytime for UTM 9. We would need to sacrifice other improvements in e-mail protection for it.

        As I already mentioned marking it as "Completed" might have been the wrong resolution. Having it in "Started" with the mentioning of Project Copernicus as well. We will adapt our status changes, though as stated the main goal of this was to point out that there is XG Firewall that does provide this functionality.

        You are right that XG Firewall still has some gaps compared to UTM 9, but we are confident that the next release of XG Firewall will have all of these addressed and will deliver some other exciting new features. Along with other improvements.

        Part of what I am currently doing is making sure that it does not take us 6 years to provide an answer to what we will be delivering or not. We do not want to have requests like this one not being answered for such a long time.
        This includes saying no to some requests as well, but we want and appreciate your feedback and want to provide you with feedback as soon as possible.

        Thanks for your feedback on your XG trial, I understand that this has not been the experience we had hoped for you to have.
        I will take this up further and I have created three feature requests for these issues, in case you want to check them:
        http://feature.astaro.com/forums/330219-sophos-xg-firewall/suggestions/11022951-installation-allow-to-configure-pppoe-for-wan-bef
        http://feature.astaro.com/forums/330219-sophos-xg-firewall/suggestions/11022906-installation-do-not-run-dhcp-server-by-default-on
        http://feature.astaro.com/forums/330219-sophos-xg-firewall/suggestions/11022822-installation-manually-set-ip-address-for-lan

        Jan

      • Jeff LewcockJeff Lewcock commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Re Jan Weber's Comment Dec 9

        "This is not the end of UTM 9 development, we will still work on UTM 9 and add features in the coming years, this commitment stands."

        Thank you I'm sure this is appreciated at least

        "However we will not be able to accompany all requests that we receive, as of now there are ~2500 requests in this forum."

        This feature has been in the top ten requests for some time now, Are you saying Sophos does not prioritise the most common customer requests ?

        "Looking at this specific request it has been up for over 6 years and we have been pushing it out year over year. "

        Yes it has taken 6 years for Sophos not to deliver one of the most popular customer requests

        "So yes this specific feature will not make it into UTM 9, but not because of XG Firewall."

        Why then was this feature said to being Planned , worked on and completed here ?

        "BTW if you are missing features in XG Firewall or have other requests for it, please share them with us in the XG Firewall feature request forum.
        We do need it in order to improve XG Firewall for you."

        Why on earth would someone move to XG with possibly more features missing when it may take 6 years for features asked for to NOT be included ?

        PS I did a trial install of XG,
        It was awkward to deploy (due to not being able to set its ip address to match the network it was on)
        It screwed up my network (by having a DHCP server active on the lan at startup without me authorising it)
        I wasnt able to licence it (due to not being able to use a PPPOE interface for WAN on startup)
        apart from that it was great (and now deleted)

      • Hi all, let me try to clarify a few things.

        This is not the end of UTM 9 development, we will still work on UTM 9 and add features in the coming years, this commitment stands.

        However we will not be able to accompany all requests that we receive, as of now there are ~2500 requests in this forum.

        Looking at this specific request it has been up for over 6 years and we have been pushing it out year over year. Because it is a very large change to the architecture of our e-mail protection and there have been and still are more critical issues that we need to address in e-mail protection.
        So at one point in time there needs to be a decision, will we be able to address this or not.

        So yes this specific feature will not make it into UTM 9, but not because of XG Firewall.

        Perhaps "Completed" is the wrong resolution here, the main message this should communicate is that we do have it available in one of our products.

        BTW if you are missing features in XG Firewall or have other requests for it, please share them with us in the XG Firewall feature request forum.
        We do need it in order to improve XG Firewall for you.

        Jan

        PS: Before you ask XG Firewall and UTM 9 have a different architecture overall and also for e-mail protection, hence a "simple" backport would also not address this.

      • ThomasThomas commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Sorry, this is a UTM / ASG Feature Request Forum I can't see this request being addressed.

      • GaryMGaryM commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        As has already been said, Sophos UTM will need it to remain competitive. Sophos, from all appearances, doesn't have the will to make that happen, . The writing is on the wall, prepare for the fading away of the UTM we like and start looking for a replacement.

      • NetmarkNetmark commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        In other words Sophos has said no?
        So that for that 5 year plan to keep both SG and XG streams working and closing down SG (UTM) at the end.
        Does this say that Sophos is not going to do fundamental requirement development?

      • Paul LemairePaul Lemaire commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I agree with Jeff Lewcock and other similar comments. As far as I am concerned the work has NOT been completed.

      • Jeff LewcockJeff Lewcock commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        This is the "UTM (Formerly ASG) Feature Requests" forum not SOPHOS XG Feature request forum. SO why is this marked as "Completed" When it is not ?

      • johan vrmjohan vrm commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        XG is not 9.x (or the good firewall from sophos). I sure hope the features asked here arent only implmented on XG as that one is missing way to many features 9.x has and unusable for us.

      • Lukas GaronLukas Garon commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I was satisfacted with SMTP- an POP-Proxy so far. But now i really need an IMAP-Proxy. Please - be kind and implement this feature!
        Thanks in Advanced!

      • Joe SchmuckJoe Schmuck commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        I'm not sure why IMAP hasn't been implemented, along with SPOP but they are needed to create a complete email scanning solution.

      • Brian JeffersonBrian Jefferson commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Many small to medium businesses don't have their own email server but have multiple devices they use to run their business. POP just doesn't make sense for them. IMAP is and has been the standard since we started using smartphones and tablets. This is an essential service that needs to be implemented sooner than later. It should already be up and running. What's the delay?

      ← Previous 1 3 4

      Feedback and Knowledge Base