AdminEnrique Saggese (Principal Program Manager, Information Protection CxE, Microsoft - Azure - Msip)

My feedback

  1. 15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  2. 1 vote
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Protection  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  3. 50 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Proposed  ·  3 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Protection  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    PDF is now covered in addition to Office files, so we have edited the definition of this request to focus on additional file types. If you primarily cared about PDF you can remove your vote from this one.

  4. 0 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Information Protection » Labelling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Request understood, but I want to clarify that UL does support these settings, it is built-in labels *on all platforms including Windows* that don't have this requirement. This is not an issue with Unified Labeling, but with built-in labels, which is still missing multiple features. The Office team is working to get closer to feature parity with the Unified Labeling client before end of the year.
    In the meantime, this should not prevent a customer working with the AIP client from moving to the AIP UL client given that both clients support the same advanced settings.

  5. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  6. 18 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Proposed  ·  4 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Please note that support for airgapped networks is already available in the latest Unified Labeling Scanner and PowerShell. Still being evaluated for the AIP Unified Labeling Scanner.

  7. 16 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    4 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Labelling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Regarding the previous comment, the current behavior in Office is actually that if the user doesn't have the EXPORT right (which officially controls whether a user can save the file in unprotected format) the file can't be saved in PDF format. So while inheriting the protection on export in PDF format would be a desirable feature, the current behavior in Office doesn't create holes that could cause data leakage.
    It is only if you have the PDF plugin from Adobe installed that the plugin overwrites this functionality with one that allows you to save the file in unprotected format with only Save rights. As such, I suggest filing a bug with Adobe, not with Microsoft. 

  8. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Under Review  ·  0 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Protection  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  9. 2 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  10. 11 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Information Protection » Security  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    The ask is understood, but I want to clarify that the problem you are observing is that some clients discard all metadata on replies, so it would not be possible to use metadata to store the label (i.e. it is not that these clients discard AIP labeling metadata, they ignore and discard all non-core email metadata).
    Also must add that classification metadata is always persisted if the email is protected, regardless of the client that receives the email.
    So the solution for the problem as expressed would have to involve putting the classification encoded in the body of the message. You can do this today by applying content markings (or a "disclaimer" during transport) and then creating a rule for inbound email that looks for such text and classifies the email accordingly.
    So we will interpret this feature request as automating such process. Let us know if we are missing some aspect of the problem.

  11. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  12. 17 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  13. 217 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    19 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Office Clients  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Unfortunately no ETA is available yet given the dependency on multiple work streams. We'll provide an ETA as soon as one is available.

  14. 7 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

  15. 3 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    0 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Doc Tracking  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  16. 4 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    1 comment  ·  Azure Information Protection » Labelling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    Can you explain the objective? If there's a default label and users are not allowed to change it, what is the point in having other labels?

  17. 15 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    3 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Labelling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
  18. 12 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Proposed  ·  2 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Office 365 and EMS  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    While this is a valid request, I want to respond to the comment below that MCAS doesn't support this. MCAS CAN apply AIP classification labels to files in real-time currently, so MCAS can address the scenario described here.

  19. 40 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    7 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Office Clients  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    While we agree on the importance of it being native, I want to highlight that you can use AIP classification buttons to trigger Encrypt Only via a transport rule. So from an end-user perspective, it should be a single click operation with what's available today.

  20. 20 votes
    Sign in
    (thinking…)
    Sign in with: Facebook Google
    Signed in as (Sign out)

    We’ll send you updates on this idea

    Proposed  ·  0 comments  ·  Azure Information Protection » Labelling  ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →
← Previous 1 3

Feedback and Knowledge Base