Remove, or make optional, the Bitdefender "safe" label in Email Protection

Adam A. · 2024-09-11T15:23:06+00:00

There was an error rendering this rich post.

For me, having the "Dangerous" label is all that is required. By definition, all other incoming emails are safe.

I don't like getting every single email tagged with a useless label. It should at least be optional if users want the "safe" label.

Yes, I know that some users might not understand that Email Protection only scans emails arriving after protection has been turned on. This is why it is fine to leave the "safe" label turned on by default. Just please, pretty please, let users like me turn off the "safe" label!

Otherwise I'll just turn off the entire Email Protection, and that would be a shame.

Find more posts tagged with

Active

bitdefender email protection

Status: Active

Comments

Alexandru_BD

Hello @Adam A. and thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with us here.

So, Bitdefender's Email Protection feature displays both safe and dangerous labels to provide clear, comprehensive feedback on the security status of all emails, not just the dangerous ones. I think there are a few reasons for this approach. First, showing a 'safe' label reassures users that the emails they are interacting with have been scanned and are free from potential threats. This gives users peace of mind when dealing with legitimate emails, and also shows that the feature is working as expected. This provides both clarity and confidence to the user.

Secondly, if only dangerous emails were labeled, users might feel uncertain about emails without any label, as they wouldn't know if those emails had been scanned or if the system missed them. Diving further into reasoning, by showing both types of labels, Bitdefender ensures consistency in its user interface. Every email is classified, so there's no ambiguity about whether an email has been evaluated by the system.

Finally, we have learned that some users may want to double-check even safe-labeled emails, especially if they are sensitive to security. The presence of both labels helps them make informed decisions without relying only on the dangerous label.

While it may seem unnecessary to display the safe label, it's intended to create a more transparent and secure environment for users, reducing doubt about email safety.

I hope I was able to provide more clarity here. Considering all the above, I think it's unlikely for the safe label to be removed in the future, however, I did make a note regarding its optional display, like you've suggested. Following your post here, the feature request has been automatically sent to the product developers for consideration.

Thank you once again for your time and for choosing Bitdefender.

Regards,

Alex

keithrmanning

The reasoning given for insisting on both labels makes no sense.

Much more important is the "boy who cried wolf" factor. Less than one percent of my emails get "Dangerous" label. After seeing 99 "Bitdefender: Safe" labels and ignoring them, do you honestly expect me to be more likely to notice the "Bitdefender: Dangerous" label? I can't think of a better way to train the brain to ignore a label than to expose it to 99 false alarms that look almost identical to the important label.

If you insist on labeling all emails, I suggest you change your labels to "Safe" and "Bitdefender: Dangerous email - examine carefully before opening." All your users would have a good chance of noticing the difference. (BTW. Outlook does allow such long labels/categories. Using them for important alerts is just what is needed.)

[This paragraph is included to assist other users with ideas for overcoming this poor label design.] I have deleted the Outlook category "Bitdefender: Safe". However, I suspect your software will "know better" than me, a mere user, and reinstate it. In which case I will be forced to write a server-side rule which will scan any email with the category of "Bitdefender: Safe" and remove it before it pollutes my inbox. I may add another rule which detects any email with the "Bitdefender: Dangerous" category, deletes that category and adds my much longer version which is much more likely to get my attention.

Keith

Flexx

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/353357#Comment_353357

Despite your concerns, it seems unlikely that Bitdefender developers will make significant changes to the current email protection feature or offer additional customization options. The company typically introduces new features or improves on already implemented ones after considering the needs of various types of users worldwide. However, even after this consideration, there is no guarantee that a specific feature will be implemented, as it requires approval from higher management before being incorporated into the Bitdefender product. That said, since you've already provided your feedback in this forum section, it has been automatically shared with the Bitdefender development team.

Going forward, if higher management agrees to implement the change you’ve suggested and the Bitdefender developers begin working on it, it could take up to a year for it to be fully integrated into the Bitdefender product. Based on my understanding, this is considered a low-priority feature request, and such requests are typically addressed after more urgent tasks are completed. The Bitdefender development process prioritizes critical updates first, and implementing these updates can experience delays, often taking months to be completed due to the extensive testing and approval process they undergo.

While this may seem like a relatively simple change, it is classified as a low-level feature, and Bitdefender tends to address these after completing more pressing tasks.

Perhaps @camarie can provide insights here, even though this may or may not fall directly within his area of work. He may still be able to explain how Bitdefender categorizes and introduces feature changes over time.

Regards

camarie

@Flexx that looks right. This has to be a decision from the product managers (and no, I am not directly involved in email protection). I think there can be multiple reasons for white labeling (aka Safe), one of these simply meaning "it has already been analyzed and it's ok so don't do it again". Others can be: use as a searching criteria; generate statistics etc.
Of course, I cannot speak accurately for any of these since I did not implement any of the logic - but I did forwarded the forum thread to guys knowing more than me. Let's see what they have to say first.

Flexx

https://community.bitdefender.com/en/discussion/comment/353385#Comment_353385

Thank you, @camarie, for your help!

Regards

TomH_NMB

I know this has been discussed before, but over 96% of my 100s of daily emails are Safe. I do appreciate the flagging of Dangerous emails, but the Safe label is a visual nuisance. I spend time deleting it each AM and PM from my Gmail and Outlook accounts. If you need to provide a "Buyer Beware" warning as the option to remove the Safe label that would be OK.

FYI….based on my Perplexity query: "I have enabled Bitdefender email protection. Can I disable the automatic labeling of Bitdefender Safe messages", the response included:

"As of now, Bitdefender does not provide an option to disable only the "safe" label while keeping email protection enabled.

"Many users have expressed a desire to disable or make optional the "safe" label, preferring only dangerous emails to be marked."

so I know I am not alone in this.

Thanks for your consideration.

BTW…if you haven't tried Perplexity, give it a shot. I prefer it over Copilot and ChatGPT. Grok is not even in the running! :-)

Tom