What is a one sentence summary of your feature request?
Separated eDiscovery and Cap features from file location in the allowlist.
Please describe your idea in detail. What is your problem, why do you feel this idea is the best solution, etc.
Hello, I’m Kim Dong-hyun.
In order to exclude certain paths of folders from the scope of eDiscovery, we have confirmed that we have set the path of that folder in the file location entry in the Allow list, which has caused the Cap policy to allow files within that path folder.
If you add the ability to apply this to eDiscovery and Cap policies respectively, it will be much easier to avoid browsing the files you want for your own purposes.
How do you currently solve the challenges you have by not having this feature?
To address this, the Denylists - Scan Location feature limits the scope of eDiscovery and excludes discovery folders from this scope. However, this method is cumbersome to move folders and change policies.
Upload any supporting images that you think should be considered in this idea.
Hello Kim Dong-hyun,
Thank you for sharing your idea!
Apologies for the delayed response. Please give us some time to review this request internally, and we will get back to you with a response.
Regards,
Simona
Hello,
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your consideration of the request and will wait patiently for your response
Hello Kim Dong-hyun,
I hope you’re having a good day!
We’re truly grateful for your insightful feedback on Endpoint Protector!
With this, we would like to inform you that your suggestion has been acknowledged as valuable and is being considered as part of our long-term plans. And for that, our team is committed to working on it and finding the best possible solution, keeping your input in mind.
Nevertheless, while this won’t be rolled out in the short to mid-term timeline, you can rest easy knowing that we’ll keep you posted on our progress.
All the best,
Simona
