AdamS

We have a request from clients, and for some this is a deal breaker, to be able to manually assign custom reference numbers/ID's to documents, this could apply equally to Intella TEAM and CONNECT. Ideally this would be something configured prior to the indexing process starting and allowing the creation of a new column/field to be named as we need to. For example my clients would like to be able to have naming conventions like PAN.00001.0001.456 as an example. The numbers and configuration mean that from start to finish that number is used by them communicating internally and externally, then when court evidence briefs are prepared the same numbering is used. Essentially a file is married to that ID at the time of indexing and they can customise the name and content. Much the same way we can do now at the export stage, but they need me to be able to do that at the indexing stage. Not to confuse this with just renaming all the files, which I could do easily, this is something that would need to be assigned based on file hash to allow it to survive a re-index if the need arises. Happy to discuss further as I can't stress this is a deal breaker for some clients and I'm very keen to get this functionality in as soon as possible. Edit: I should point out that I figured a work around for the short term which works using the custodian and the Doc ID, I set the Custodian as PAN.001.001 and then the Doc ID already assigned by Intella becomes the last digits to the code. Typically the codes used with have meanings, so PAN might be the client reference, 001 might be the box and 001 the folder number. This method means that provided I maintain good records about where certain files have come from then it will work, however it is a work around and I hope a more permanent solution can be worked out.

I don't think it's due to complex queries in this instance as my client is only running single word or short phrase queries. Next time it happens I'll send the log files through to support and see if that sheds some light on it.

One of my client's gets periodic 'Error response code 504' when attempting to search. Restarting the Connect instance or the server generally fixes it but it keeps occurring at semi regular intervals. running Connect 2.0. Any idea's/thoughts?

I have seen this from time to time and while I'm not sure exactly what is causing it in my case stopping the Connect service and restarting it often will correct the error. In some cases a full reboot of the Connect machine is needed. Admittedly it is rare that I see these but that seems to work for me.

Not sure if I've mentioned this before but it would be great if there was a way to run a virus scan on email attachments. Part of my normal analysis process involves scanning and reporting on any potential viruses, however when it comes to email archives it's not possible to scan them as a file, they need to be mounted/opened first. I'm not sure on how this could be achieved but perhaps with some sort of integration module or the like that would allow us to use our own AV software already installed.

Ahhh I understand. I incorrectly thought that the OCR'd PDF would be an entirely new document, hence my comments about the duplicate files.

This actually feeds nicely to a previous request I'd made to have the ability to set a time limit that cases are actually shared for, that way we could set a case to share based on a date range (or no limit for permanent shares).

That would be fantastic. My main reason for wanting this is generally I prefer to work within Intella where possible for the extra speed when I'm attempting to do things for my clients. The more functionality that Intella has before we let clients loose on Connect the better I think.

If you untick the option to include meta data you will not have a cover sheet, however if you are looking at emails then you'll lose the header info which is generally pretty important.

I know this was talked about last year but suspect other updates have pushed it back a bit. http://community.vound-software.com/index.php?/topic/252-additional-deduping/?p=1266 I also think the de-duping capabilities could use some enhancing for near dupes and also email threading as discussed in the link above.

I'd love to see the ability to view batch sets within Intella, maybe under the features facet or even a whole new facet allowing batches to be created/edited from Intella as well.

The OCR and Non OCR documents are already linked within Intella as they both have the same MD5 value (used when exporting for OCR process). If you want to identify them you can simply 'show duplicates' of any OCR'd file and you will see the original non searchable version. Just curious as to why you would open the original non searchable PDF document when you have the OCR'd version in the case as well? Any searches you do will obviously ignore the non searchable duplicate but will run across the OCR'd version, so any hits you get will be relevant. If you want to include the original version in any final reports then you can do this by including the duplicates with the method above.

Could something be done with scripts here? You can put a shortcut to intella.exe in the auto start folder to have it run at boot, from there possibly something with scripts or a third party tool? Edit: a quick search around found this software which allows you to force some CLI commands after the software launches. http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/advanced_run.html Checking through the manual for Intella there is limited support for CLI (including headlesss mode) so it appears you can only launch or create a case and set a folder to index. Maybe it would be possible to add CLI support to share cases within Intella which would give you a workable solution for your needs?

Thanks Andrej, you are correct about the second point, I was clicking in the wrong place.

There seems to be a limitation with Connect in that you cannot select multiple search result items. By that I mean if you run a search for 'test' then a search for 'car' you will have the two balls for each word and then the third ball for the intersecting portion, you can only view one of these three results at a time, where as in Intella you can view all 3 or any 2 if you choose. This creates issues when using Connect as often we will want to select multiple items to create export packages. I've also noticed that in the above scenario say there was 20 hits for each keyword and 5 hits in the intersection (both words) each keyword ball would show the number 15 and the middle ball would have 5. Selecting one of the keywords would only display 15 unique items and excludes those that are contained in both, this behavior is not mimicked in Intella. So two wishes here, give Connect the ability to select multiple results and secondly don't exclude the intersecting results from the main results.

I thought I'd just revisit this as I've had some concerns with just how resource intensive Veeam is when backing up. It made the server very slow for anyone accessing via the web to the point where I had to keep cancelling backups to allow clients to use the server. I've just switched to Iperius Backup Freeware and am running a full backup now and this didn't appear to slow down my access when I logged in remotely and previewed a case. Veeam may not have been the issue here, it could be something with my setup, but just thought I'd mention it in case you were having issues with Veeam and needed another solution.

oops That's working nicely, picks up around 10% non spam emails but seemed to get all the ones I had identified plus a bunch I missed. Please ignore my previous post

I know this is a difficult one given the efforts spammers go to beat any sort of filtering, but I'm thinking along the lines of something simpler. There are plenty of spam emails that come out from NBC News, Rueters, CNN etc etc, would it be possible to build into Intella a way to detect these emails possibly based purely on the subject line. This would be my ideal outcome, Intella detects emails that it suspects may be spam based on the magical formula that is no doubt needed, these items then appear in their own field under the existing features facet. We then have the option to view these emails that are suspected as spam and apply a setting that removes them from any future searches. One step further hide them from view all together would be great as well. I know it probably would be difficult to detect the hard core spam, but the emails from known magazines, news sites etc should be fairly easy to do. There are plenty of spam filter companies out there so perhaps a strategic partnership or maybe there are some open source lists that could be used.

Just be aware that Veeam is quite resource intensive on the server so make sure you have the backup run when it's not in use. I'm not sure if it's just my server or this happens in general but my remote users report a major slow down when the backup process is running, and I have had backups take a few days to complete. So as far as the fact that it's free and it does proper incremental backups it's good, however the negatives do have an impact.

jcoyne I have Veeam Endpoint (free) running on my Connect server backing up the Case data with a traditional full/incremental setup, then in addition I also sync the entire case folder to a network share 'as is'. While you are right there is probably some extra info there that strictly speaking isn't needed, I look at it as taking a time hit now so if disaster recovery is needed I can get the case up and shared again instantly by simply pointing Connect to the network share for the case. This has the added benefit that all the 'previewed' flags etc will be there so your client will not notice any difference from viewing the backed up data to the original.

I'm in the throes of archiving a large amount of data and thought it would be great if Connect had this option built in as another case option. I'm thinking have the option appear in the same place as 'delete this case' appears in the cases menu, with the option to archive locally or to a remote network share. Also to make it workable the process would need to archive directly into some sort of container file (this will avoid any long file name errors on the other end). Presently my process is first create a container with 7zip using no compression (store), then once it's a single file it can be relatively quickly copied across the network or to anywhere.

Nice one, thanks Lukasz.

I have a client request for the ability to create new tabs within the main review screen. Presently you have 'All batches' as the main/default tab, then when batches are assigned to you other tabs appear named for the batches. We have a multi staged review and the client would like to have a tab "initial review" and then "secondary review" (or similar) as opposed to simply having a single "all batches" tab. Ideally this would be admin controlled (ie me not the end user) and we can set this up for our clients. to further complicate matters it would also need to retain work/tags/status from the original batches for when there are duplicates (where possible).

I think from memory I have asked something very similar previously but I can't find the post at the moment. It was along the lines of the way Outlook deals with messages, they aren't actually 'saved' as individual .msg files within the PST archive, the PST archive is a live database of sorts. When you choose to export/save an individual email with Outlook it uses the .msg format after it extracts the email from the database. So you could argue that Outlook emails don't have a 'native' format, however that's a technical argument at best. If the client is asking for native format then PST is native format as that is how they are stored when in use, however for individual items I tend to check what email client they will be using to view the emails, then provide them with .eml or .msg as required. I know Intella developers have had this on the 'to do' list for some time and I suspect it's slipped under the radar with all the developments that 1.9.1 brought to the table, but I would add my voice to JNForensic to have this brought up the list a little if possible so we can have the option of using .msg or .eml when exporting individual emails.

I will be creating new batches for this job in the near future and very likely adding batches on an ongoing basis where there is likely to be common files occurring. My current CL looks like this (sort of) 1. Parent 1 tag1 tag2 tag3 tag4 tag5 2. Parent 2 tag1 tag2 tag3 3. Possibly Relevant 4. Not Relevant All tags in the CL are currently not required and they are checkbox to allow multiple tags to be applied. Is there a way I can ensure future batches will retain coding from previous batches moving forward?