GFI MailEssentials 12

by steve on July 21, 2008 · 20 comments

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Technical Support

GFI Technical Support was one of the selling points of the product when we first acquired it. We contacted support and raised a number of questions and they were always quick to respond with solid answers and technical knowledge. However, over the past 12 months or so, we have seen a serious degradation in this area. Here are some real examples of what has happened:

  1. No Lab – we submitted very simple E-mail messages (some as 3-4 words) that would be identified as SPAM, but were simple sentences about meeting for lunch or asking someone to call you back. When these were submitted (in their entirety) to GFI, they would always ask for a “Troubleshooter”. This is their tool for gathering state information and packet traces (using WinPCAP) for analysis. This is fine, if you can actually capture the mail when it arrives. But it also assumes that you can use your production environment for testing and experimentation. We asked repeatedly for them to try the test messages in their lab and they always came back with an excuse that they cannot log a helpdesk ticket without a Troubleshooter. In essence, they made their internal process problem, my problem and that is unacceptable. I am completely convinced that they do not have any tech support lab to experiment or duplicate user problems or issues.

  2. Bug in SPF – we identified a serious problem in their SPF record parser. One of our customers had a legitimate SPF record that MailEssentials could not properly parse. As such, they treated the record as a soft-fail and the mail was bounced. Our customers and clients were furious and it took almost two months for us to convince GFI that their product had a bug. Once they admitted to the bug, they told us it would be released in an upcoming build — but to date, they have not released a fix and we have been told recently that they do not have a schedule to fix it now.

  3. Always time for a vacation – During the height of some critical issues (see #3 above), the technical support engineers would leave us an away message while they took a 2-week vacation. The cases were not turned over to other technicians and they went “black” on us many times. As a matter of fact, the louder we complained and told them about our frustrations, the more often vacations occurred.

  4. Slow response – While GFI support, engineering and other parts of the company are global, they act as if that is an excuse for long delays in getting back to customers. Our E-mail exchanges took days and weeks to ask and answer simple questions. They have no sense of urgency in supporting their customers.
  5. Phone support – this is practically non-existent for GFI. This makes escalation and getting focused attention on serious problems impossible.
  6. No escalation – probably the most exasperating thing about GFI support. I had asked many times to speak with senior management in support, engineering and customer service. I was never allowed to contact or speak with anyone other than support engineers. Even after getting to backend support personnel, I was never able to contact managers nor would they have a manager contact me after my requests.

Our Conclusion

The problems with technical support and the lack of attention that GFI is keeping on this product has forced us to look at the competition in order to find a replacement. The amount of SPAM getting through with a working Bayesian Analysis engine is too high and the false-positive rate is too high to turn it on. We’ve seen the last of GFI MailEssentials at my company.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

  • david

    Makes you wonder how they could win any awards… Of course, we all know that these evaluations rarely envolve real production, upgrades and real support cases.

    GFI MailEssentials wins Editor’s Choice Award 2008 – GFI MailEssentials has won the Editor’s Choice Award 2008 from Communications Week magazine. The magazine (pg 32 of the 18 February 2008 issue) said that the product “is the perfect way for a company to manage spam with detection and quarantine capabilities that is rock solid”.
    - Communications Week, February 2008

    GFI MailEssentials wins Global Product Excellence Award – GFI has been awarded the Global Product Excellence Award for GFI MailEssentials in the anti-spam category. The awards, organized by Infosecurity Products Guide, recognize and honor excellence in all areas of information security. GFI beat off stiff competition from McAfee, PineApp Corp., St. Bernard Software and Engate Technology Group.
    - Infosecurity Products Guide, January 2008

  • http://www.heyvan.com/blogs/steve/2008/07/26/technology-reviews/anti-spam-reviews/ninja-blade/ Just A Word (or two) From Steve » Ninja Blade

    [...] administrator about a detailed analysis between the Ninja Blade and our current soution using GFI MailEssentials 12 and GFI MailSecurity 10 on Microsoft Exchange Front-End servers.  At the same time, I printed the [...]

  • http://www.gfi.com Nicholas Sciberras

    Hi,

    I wanted to start of by saying that I work for GFI as a senior technical support supervisor for the EMEA region. I was reading your interesting blog on GFI MailEssentials and thought of posting some comments which would help clarify some of the points that you mentioned.

    I was struck by the fact that you did not consider using the Auto-Whitelist. This is the best way to identify legitimate emails. We normally recommend the use of the autowhitelist, which would allow the configuration of the other modules to be stricter. You should also check your emails with an email-anti-virus solution such as GFI MailSecurity.

    On a similar topic, you opted not to use the Keyword whitelist. Our recommendation is to insert keywords which are used only within your business or within your company. For example, you may want to insert the names of your products in the keyword whitelist. Spammers will never send emails which make use of such keywords.

    As you may have noticed, I did give a lot of importance to the whitelist functionality. This is because most of the times you would rather receive a spam email every now and then rather than having your anti-spam solution block or delay that email with the deal of the month.

    I would also like to comment on the use of the blacklists. As explained in http://www.spamhaus.org/zen/index.lasso, zen.spamhaus.org includes all the the Spamhaus DNS Blacklists. Therefore, there is no need to use sbl-xbl.spamhaus.org in your case.

    As regards the Bayesian problem, the Bayesian filter needs to be trained using both HAM and SPAM emails. Could it be that HAM emails were used to teach the bayesian filters about SPAM emails? This will cause legitimate emails to be blocked. There are various knowledgebase articles on the GFI knowledgebase (http://kbase.gfi.com) which explains how to tweak the Bayesian filter which I am sure my colleagues have already forwarded on.

    Here at GFI, each member of the tech support has his own test environment which he uses to test simple queries. Having said that, not all issues which are reported are reproduced on the test environment, and when this occurs, we would need to request more information in order to troubleshoot further the problem. The troubleshooting files allows us to gather as much information on the system without needing us to ask many questions.

    I would also like to mention that when techs are on vacation the cases they are dealing with get re-assigned to other techs. We try to answer all queries received on the phone, however this may not always be possible especially when the issue needs to be escalated.

    I have left my email address in my comment and would be more than happy to continue the discussion offline.

    Nicholas Sciberras
    Senior Technical Support Supervisor – GFI Software – http://www.gfi.com
    Messaging, Content Security & Network Security Software

  • steve

    Nicholas,

    Thank your for the comments and contributing to the discussion. You raise some good points about the product and another product that I did not mention in our environment.

    First, we do use GFI MailSecurity 10 along side GFI MailEssentials 12 in our environment. The two products work very well together. I have not yet written about that product, but I will soon as it plays a role in our security infrastructure.

    We did consider auto-whitelist as I mentioned in the original post, but our issue is not with the product, but with users. They will respond to SPAM, if they get it, and say, “no thanks” or “take me off your list”. BAM! That address is whitelisted now and everyone pays a price. It also takes processing time and it must be culled and maintained. Relying on users to do the right thing is not practical in my opinion. We have to protect them — even from themselves.

    I see your point about the keyword whitelist, and it is possible that it can be used effectively to assist in some environments. Our many samplings of SPAM and false-positive messages did not show that this would be effective in our environment. Now, we see a lot of “directed” SPAM where the senders use technical terms and business-savvy words to get users to open up the SPAM. I don’t want to give them an open-door opportunity. I feel the same way about keyword blocking being too generic.

    I appreciate the info on the DNS blacklists. Keeping these to a minimum will improve mail throughput performance and I will implement your recommendations as the product is still in production at our company.

    As far as Bayesian is concerned, I will leave that for an offline discussion since it has a long history and detailed case notes within GFI technical support.

  • http://torgest.ru anabarmaliese

    Ребят, так все-таки это действенный метод или нет?

  • http://www.photoshoptutorials.info/ Jenny

    I found more here if anyone’s interested

  • http://www.photoshoptutorials.info/ Jenny

    I found more here if anyone’s interested

  • http://www.modding.appee.ru kvmet

    Прикольно

  • steve

    anabarmaliese – Sorry for the late response — I just now got around to translating your question. In my opinion, this product is not a valid or acceptable product to be used in a corporate or ISP environment any more. There are better products for enterprises (see my article on Symantec 8300) and personal products for small groups or organizations.

  • http://www.gemberd.ru/ Atex

    Интересно :)

  • http://www.tgmt.ru/ Nagrad

    Интересно

  • http://www.domobit.ru/ Prestige

    Прикольно

  • http://seastar.tgmt.ru denis1981

    Интересная статья

  • http://www.moddcom.net/ linux2005

    Интересно

  • http://www.powerbeauty.ru iventiva

    Хороший сайт

  • http://www.pcmodding.ru/ lerea

    Мне понравилось

  • http://www.hostron.ru artscripts

    Интересно, есть над чем подумать.

  • http://www.kinovik.info speedre13

    Довольно интересно, спасибо.

  • http://www.kinodir.ru bvp500

    Интересная статья

  • http://tecdiagnozist.ru Anonymous

Next post: