topic Re: Gmail Compliance - Objectionable Content Test in Peer-Peer Topics

Gmail Compliance - Objectionable Content Test

BobHigham — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:04:02 GMT

Having attended the Google Admin Security workshop a couple of days ago I have set up a gmail compliance rule for objectionable content to test the functionality. If I send an inbound email to the domain from an external user which triggers the rule the sender receives a "message blocked" message (550 5.7.1) stating that the domain has blocked the email, as I would expect.

However, if I send the same message from a user inside the domain to either an internal or external recipient the message is correctly rejected but no informative message is sent to the sender. In fact the sender has no notification that the message has been rejected by the compliance rule. In the email log search the sent message is shown and expansion of the recipient details show that the email has been rejected 550-5.7.1 by a policy and details the rule that has been matched.

Is this a known/expected system behaviour? Is there a way that I can enable rejection messages for internal users?

Many thanks.

Bob.

Re: Gmail Compliance - Objectionable Content Test

Kim_Nilsson — Mon, 15 Apr 2024 19:20:55 GMT

Do you generally allow external emails to those recipients that are expecting to be rejected?

Error message emails are external and must be allowed.

Re: Gmail Compliance - Objectionable Content Test

BobHigham — Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:09:56 GMT

Kim, Thnaks for your reply.

The usual garden wall restrictions are in place for primary students on both drive and gmail but I am exploring the options that are open to raise staff awareness of potential security and data loss "issues" within their email and drive usage. I would expect GWfE to notify internal users of any email of theirs that has not been delivered in the same way as it notifies external users whose email has been rejected.

From the email log GWFE is recognising that it has not met the rule requirement but has not taken the action as is described in the rule when the user is internal which strikes me as odd.

Or have I just got the wrong end of the stick?