Slashdot Mirror


HP's OpenMail: I'm Not Dead Yet

Jon Hill writes "It looks as if HP's OpenMail system is not dead yet and development of the project has been assumed by Samsung's software division. This is great news considering OpenMail was the only serious Unix-based competitor to Microsoft Exchange. Now if only it was strongly marketed and made well known, enterprise administrators such as myself could embrace it." For those of not familiar, essentially OpenMail is the *only* e-mail platform out there, besides Exchange that will support a whole slew of Microsoft Outlook features - something necessary in the enterprise, despite that people should know better.

302 comments

  1. Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    1. Re:Security by shrdlu · · Score: 2, Informative
      give users the ability to run arbitrary shell commands Well, sure, but did you bother to note the date that the problem occurred on? That advisory has a timestamp of: Date: Fri, 29 May 1998 16:24:28 -0700

      I'm sure that it's probably filled with security holes, but it seems fair to point out that one was fixed long ago.

      --
      The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. (Mark Twain)
  2. Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 2

    I've never used Exchange, so I'm seriously interested in what people like about it. Why do companies feel it's better than a standard IMAP/LDAP setup?

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    1. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Sobrique · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is 'Outlook' has many many smart features such as shared calendars, netfolders, meeting scheduling, kitchen sink etc.
      Unfortunately, without an exchange server, they are flakey to say the least.
      (RANT: Exchange corporate has 2 modes of operation. Internet and 'corporate'. The former supports IMAP mail, and allows you to send Plain Text/HTML/RTF by default. It also allows you to over ride the text setting with 'Plain Text' on a per user basis. - not any other format. The latter does not support IMAP. Will allow the same 'default' formats but only allows an override of 'always send RTF' to this user.
      Annoying but we can cope. Unfortunately, the undocumented 'feature' is that Shared folders/calendars etc. DO NOT WORK without RTF.
      What kind of monkey designs a program with two exclusive sets of features?
      No. Don't answer that. I already know.

    2. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      Exchange is LDAP. It was also the first version of active directory which in it's present form conforms to most of the standards.

    3. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by derbytyke · · Score: 1, Interesting

      It's basically an ease of use thing, I've tried out various IMAP/LDAP client/server combinations but non of them are as easy as for the user as Exchange/Outlook are. There are also things like calendering and forums built in and delivery and read receipts that are easy to use. I also need to have an e-mail system that can talk to X400 systems easily - granted not a universal requirement - and Exchange copes with X400 and SMTP/ESMTP well (plus others like MS Mail, ccMail etc.)

      While I prefer Unix/Linux for most server tasks as they are great OS's, I prefer Exchange as an e-mail platform.

    4. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by CodeMonky · · Score: 2

      The major features of exchange is not so much the email but the shared calendaring and task lists etc. Exchange will also integrate with things like Project so that when you are assigned a new task for a Project it is given to you as a task in your exchagne mailbox.

      *This is not flamebit*
      For whats its worth, I actually like exchange. It is a bit bloated however of the 150+ people we've moved to exchange from groupwise and plain sendmail+POP none have complained and most (those that use the calendaring, special forms, etc) say they think it is great.

      --
      --"Karma is justice without the satisfaction"
    5. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by flipper28 · · Score: 1

      I think the reason why people use exchange is because of the stronghold Microsoft has over it's Windows Server market. We use exchange here, and I have to admit that it makes the users happy (because outlook integrates perfectly with it), but from an operations stand point, it's not that good. Looking at exchange from a development standpoint, it's clear that it definately has Unix roots - in fact most of the real tools for exchange can only be run from the command line (go figure from the company that shuns anything non-gui).

      IMHO it's the users and msce/consultants that want exchange.

    6. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      But that's for everything Windows. Sure the gui is nice and lets you easily do many tasks. But if you really want to get into the guts of windows you'll need to learn Perl, VB Script and all the command line tools that MS hides deep in some obscure books while the advertise the gui to death.

    7. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by killmenow · · Score: 1

      OpenMail will do all of the above. It is natively X.400 compatible, has its own SMTP/ESMTP gateway (used to depend on Sendmail), talks MAPI, IMAP, LDAP, ccMail, etc. Has a native client for Unix (Motif-based), Mac, Windows...but the native client has no calendaring. Supports Outlook calendars. Has WAP support, etc. It is an awesome product.

      Look here for more info.

    8. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Project delivers tasks via MAPI. With OpenMail (which supports MAPI) you get the same feature(s).

    9. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by TilJ · · Score: 2

      I never understood why the extra stuff (calendaring and file storage, mostly) was in the *mail client* in the first place.

      But then, I never understood using Word as a mail editor either.

      --
      "The purpose of argument is to change the nature of truth." -- Bene Gesserit Precept
    10. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      Only the client features are in Outlook. The Exchange server has the server side features for shared calendars, etc.

    11. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by np_geek · · Score: 1
      You can get the RTF to stay if you enable it for the IMAP and POP3 protocol on the Exchange server. Of course, as soon as you set up a rule that stops working. That was a lovely find.

      The real issue is the POP3 and IMAP services on Exchange 2000 are not stable, they leak memory like a seive and bring the services down. Our servers crash and/or refuse users on an almost daily basis. No surprise, but SP2 didn'f fix it and MS just sort of says "gee, it shouldn't do that".

      We're looking at either converting to full MAPI mode and upping the bandwidth to remote sites or dumping Exhchange in favor of an IMAP/POP3 server and something like Corporate Time for scheduling.

    12. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A lot of people have commented on the user-side features, so I'll just mention the server-side features that I like the most:

      • Extensive protocol support (POP/IMAP/MAPI/HTTP/DAV/LDAP etc)
      • Single instance storage; if you send a 20MB attachments to 100 users it will be stored only once.
      • Indexing and search capabilities.
      • IFS (Installable File System): mount your mailbox as a file system.
      • Support for active/active clustering
      • Support for front-end/back-end configurations
      • The storage system; multiple databases, transaction logs etc.
      • Scripting capabilities
      • Groupware functionality
      • Built-in antivirus API
      • Web Store: native storage of MIME-content
      • Integration with Active Directory makes administration a breeze.
      • Reliability
      • Performance


      There is a lot of anti-MS FUD here and I suspect that since I actually said something positive about a MS product there will be more.. However, if you ignore the fact that Exchange is a MS product I think that Exchange is a great product with many nice features. If it suits YOU depends on your needs, but don't write it off as crap just becase it's from Microsoft.

      Regards,

      Mattias
    13. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by flipper28 · · Score: 1

      exactly - this is so consulting companies can rape end users for things the software should have.

    14. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, without an exchange server, they are flakey to say the least.
      We use OpenMail as a back end to Outlook and have not had that experience. Shared calendars, discussion boards, meeting scheduling, etc. all work well. Even things like setting up delegates, and opening other users mailboxes for them while they're on vacation works just fine. And the server itself has been up and running for months. If I were the type, I could forget it was there.
    15. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Don't forget such things as:
      • High performance backup API
      • Amazing webmail (OWA). Especially in Internet Explorer, but it works just fine in other browsers as well.
      • Store and Transport events for workflow development
      • Policy based configuration making it simple to configure and maintain large number of servers.


      Ahh, another post that will probably be down-moderated soon...
    16. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      Microsoft Certified Partners rape you? Never.

    17. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excerpt from an email I sent out here yesterday...

      We finally figured out the shared calendaring in Outlook 2000 without Exchange...

      To set up your Free/Busy information:
      Go to Tools->Options
      Select 'Calendar Options...'
      Select 'Free Busy Options...'
      Check the 'Publish My Free Busy Information' box
      In the 'Publish at this URL' box, enter in ftp://freebusy.domain.com/[first_initial][last_nam e].vfb
      For example: ftp://freebusy.domain.com/name.vfb
      Leave the 'Search at this URL' blank

      To set up Free/Busy URLs for other employees:
      In their Contact record, go to 'Details'
      In the 'Internet Free-Busy: Address', use http://freebusy.domain.com/[first_initial][last_na me].vfb

      Once that's completed, you'll be able to schedule meetings, etc., while checking the availability of everyone here. Some things are a little screwy, but it's better than having to deal with Exchange.

      This won't work with Outlook Express, Entourage, etc.

      ---

      This setup required us to set up an internal-only anonymous ftp server to allow for everyone to post their info...

      The viewing of free/busy info works great from Evolution to schedule meetings, but I've yet to figure out a clean way to post free/busy data from Evolution...

    18. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      The anti-virus api isn't worth mentioning because it sucks. ESE based scanners like antigen and scanmail 3.6 - 3.7 are the way to go. They sit outside the IS and scan messages before they can cause harm. And AVAPI's reporting features are horrible.

    19. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by flipper28 · · Score: 1

      maybe a consulting company beginning with A

    20. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I never understood why the extra stuff (calendaring and file storage, mostly) was in the *mail client* in the first place.

      There is a philosophy that, in a business environment, it is useful to have one integrated program that manages email, address/contact book, coordinate meetings and schedules, and handle to-do lists. Instead of several programs that may handle these tasks separately, but can't communicate with one another.


      You're right, if all you need is an email program, it's way overkill, but if you have to coordinate 100's or 1000's of people in a business, it's close to a killer app, and there's not much else that even comes close.


      But then, I never understood using Word as a mail editor either.


      Ok, ya got me there.

    21. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      I actually work for a clec that I'm pretty sure will survive the current massacre.

    22. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why do companies feel it's better than a
      > standard IMAP/LDAP setup?

      You can create custom forms, like in Lotus Notes.

    23. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I believe MS is doing everything it can to make it inconvenient to use anything other than a MS Exchange server... Especially for business users...

      As we all know Outlook Express has the ability to store your Sent Items on the IMAP server, which is the MAIN idea behind IMAP. In OE it's called "Store special folders on IMAP server". And works great in OE.

      I have been playing with MS Outlook 2002/XP and tried to go through their endless options to achieve the same thing... I finally gave up and went to Microsoft's website and tried to find some sort of support answer on how to achieve this... And this is what I found on their site:

      "You Cannot Store Non E-mail Special Folders on the IMAP Server
      Your Sent Items, Drafts, and Deleted Items folders cannot reside on an IMAP server. Outlook requires that all special folders exist in the default store. IMAP cannot act as the default store because it cannot contain the non e-mail special folders.

      You can simulate a server-side Sent Items folder by creating a rule in Rules Wizard that copies all outgoing message to the IMAP folder of your choice. There is not an available work around for Drafts and Deleted Items folders."

      Isn't this the most ridiculous thing ever? Since when does an email client can not store it's Sent Items on an IMAP server?!

      I have also found out the same is true for MS Outlook 2000... And I have no idea why they call it "Non E-mail" special folders, when they ARE email... And if you are using OE and actually upgrade to Outlook and pay for it, you expect to get more features not less... OE was always referred to as a light version of Outlook.

      Anyway... MS is doing the same thing with address books, especially ones that are shared... like LDAP... Can't add or modify anything...

      And finally it would be nice if everyone understood this, and not so many businesses used Outlook... But since businesses do use it, it's just so much harder to offer them mail server that can do everything a MS Exchange server can, plus more, but is limited by the client they use, to the point that they have no feature beyond basic email.

      And if you read this far, all I can say is, this sucks :P

    24. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You probably want to check out AVAIP 2.0 (introduced in SP1 for Exchange 2000). It doesn't go all the way, but it sure is a much more pleasant experience than 1.x.

    25. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      You might sing its praises, but it's still an administrators' nightmare for at least one reason: one large database file. Corrupt the file, kill the system. How dumb.

      Properly-designed software stores each message in a separate file for reliability - maildir.

    26. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by VonSnaggle · · Score: 1

      Oh sure there are quite a few features, but only about 1% of the people at our office use them, and then ask why the feature doesn't work like they want it to(and training doesn't work because if they have any questions the IT dept will help, thats what their there for, so why waste time in training).

      --
      if common sense was common, wouldn't everyone have it?
    27. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by boxless · · Score: 0

      I don't think this is true, is it?

      Certainly, it can look to the outside world like it's LDAP, but knowing MSFT, that was an afterthought. Exchange and AD are internally MSFT custom shit, and only look to the outside like LDAP.

    28. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by alen · · Score: 2

      No they are really LDAP. AD has ADSI as the communications layer, while Sun has JNDI. But it's LDAP. MS even has an LDAP browser that comes on teh win2000 CD. It's not fully standards compliant, but it's LDAP. One thing it doesn't include is anonymous browsing.

    29. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by belloc · · Score: 1

      To set up your Free/Busy information

      I don't know how many times I have to say this to the people who say "We don't need frickin' Exchange, because OSS can do IMAP/LDAP/FTP with Outlook", so I'll say it once more, slowly:

      ** FREE/BUSY IS NOT SHARED CALENDARING. **

      While you're trying to schedule a meeting using free/busy, ask yourself this: "What is the guy who I'm trying to schedule a meeting with doing at the times when his free/busy info says he's busy?" Is he flexible then? Is he on a conference call with a vendor that could be rescheduled at any time? Or is it his daughter's piano recital that cannot, under any circumstances, be rescheduled?"

      Free/busy tells you, well, when someone is free or when they are busy. That's it, and nothing more. It is not shared calendaring. Openmail does shared calendaring with Outlook, more or less just like Exchange. You can actually see the other person's calendar (if they let you). You can even do group calendaring using Bulleting Boards! If you refuse to use Exchange, and you want your groupware to run on UNIX, and your clients insist on using Outlook on the desktop, then Openmail (soon-to-be Samsung Contact) is really the only way to go.

      Keep an eye on the Samsung information page to stay up-to-date on the progress of the HP-to-Samsung Openmail/Contact transfer.

      Belloc
      Happy Openmail-on-Linux customer since 2000.

      --
      I got more rhymes than Jamaica got Mangoes.
    30. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      I never understood why the extra stuff (calendaring and file storage, mostly) was in the *mail client*

      1) It solves a technological problem by allowing a mail-based workflow for meeting scheduling (which turns out to be a pretty complex process: invite-respond-reschedule-accept-etc).

      2) It solves a lUser problem by putting everything in one place.

      3) It solves a political problem by putting one sticker price on a broad range of functionality. Shared calendaring software has been around forever, but nobody bought or used it until it was tacked onto the mail client.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    31. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Exchange is multi-protocol.

      One Outlook client can send mail to any number of different protocols (SMTP, MS Mail, Notes, just to name a few) while being transparent to the user. Microsoft Exchange is in my opinion the one piece of software Microsoft is on the right track with. It's not there yet, it should be more open (to allow any mail client in!) but the ideas behind it are good.

      Someone should start an open project with the same principles, but do a better job with it! Of course if everyone just followed the standards to a T then there would be no need for such a product.

    32. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's true for Exchange 5.5. In Exchange 2000 you can have up to four storage groups with up to 8 databases in each group.

      Besides, I've never seen a corrupt Exchange database except in cases where the hardware failed, and that still didn't cause any data loss since Exchange just replayed the transaction log when the hardware was fixed.

      Properly-designed software stores each message in a separate file for reliability

      Intresting. Using that approach, how do you enable transaction integrity, single instance storage, granular permissions etc?

      A close comparison is a SQL server. Almost all database systems use a single (or possibly partitioned) database, and you don't see any reliability problems with them!? I don't think any sane person would suggest having a separate file for each row in a database, and I think the same applies to an email server.

    33. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by klui · · Score: 1

      My volume of emails/meetings from various projects have forced me to use Outlook/Exchange 97. While the calendar feature is convenient, there are some things that I hate about Outlook.

      1. I like to send stuff in text, but when I reply to people's messages, the editor wants to change the type to html/rich text format. Problem is the Format menu doesn't always allow me to select Plain Text. Sometimes, it is there, othertimes it's gone.

      2. Doesn't permit quoted messages to start before where I type. It likes to append everything to the end. This "feature" allows people to be super-lazy (I've done this a few times, too) and quote everything from every other piece of conversation in the thread rather than the relevant parts of the discussion.

      3. Searches of the address book whether it is global or local is dumb. In many instances, the system doesn't search for an individual's name properly and it brings up other people's names who don't resemble the name I've typed.

    34. Re:Are there any useful features in Exchange? by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      I was talking about storing mail on the file system, where it belongs, not a database.

  3. Excellent by Sobrique · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A Unix based mail program, that gives in to the 'feature keen' pointy haired ones!
    Handy.
    I've been trying to convince them that 'proper' email is text only, and attachments if you are completely ftp-impaired but to no avail. They seem to insist on 200Mb attachments (sent to 30 other users no less. Shudder), delivery in I can honestly say I've never had a problem with an Exim/Solaris mail gateway. Well, except for the 200Mb multi delivery thing. No crashes (hahaaha exchange! lotus notes!). Easy to backup (not HUGE databases) and a reliable OS underneath.
    Unfortunately, I suspect that OpenMail may suffer from the influence of point and drool admins, who can't cope with anything they can't click on. Meaning it's going to go the same way, and bloat, and become unstable.
    Can't stand NT admins who's attitude is 'its going a bit slow, so I'll reboot it'. And who think that uptimes in the matter of _days_ is normal.
    Bah.

    Oh well, I can hope :)

    1. Re:Excellent by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Sigh. 'less-than' gets parsed as html.
      I think I'll give up and go to the pub.
      FWIW that comment should have the following chunk in the middle
      ... delivery in under 30 seconds, corporate address books and major feature creep.
      I can honestly ...

    2. Re:Excellent by doctor_oktagon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been trying to convince them that 'proper' email is text only, and attachments if you are completely ftp-impaired but to no avail. They seem to insist on 200Mb attachments (sent to 30 other users no less...)

      Get with it!

      Information Technology exists to serve the needs of users, not the other way around.

      If your users want to send 300Mb attachments to each other then propose to them the infrastructure and funding requirements of such a platform rather than shouting "ftp!" to their hands (because sure as hell the face ain't listening).

      There is a massive gap between what most sys admins think of themselves and what their userbase actually thinks of them. This is a dangerous place to be in, and no amount of name calling will change their attitude.

      Deliver what the users want within reasonable expectations and the prospect of a career *not* sitting in the wiring cupboard beckons, with all the rewards that can come (CTO anyone?!)...

    3. Re:Excellent by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You need a customer friendly attitude in this business. The user doesn't care about computers. He want to get his work done in the shortest amount of time and then surf the internet. He already has enough on his or her mind about their job and they don't want to remember a bunch of obscure ftp commands. They just want to point and click.

    4. Re:Excellent by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Oh certainly. IT does need to fulfil a role.
      This is why we end up running a lotus notes architecture. It does have the concept of a 'shared' file, to which you can send a link to multiple other users, and thus have 1 copy of a huge file.
      The problem is that despite this fact, many many users just do not bother to think about it. And thus we get large emails sent to everyone/multiple people.
      I do have somewhat oldfashioned ideas. I expect that these 'power users' who want to be able to do wonderful things with their tools actually bother to find out something about how they work.
      Oh well.

    5. Re:Excellent by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      200MB files can be handled in may different ways that can be user friendly. The best to me would be an online document retrieval system that allows users to "publish" their document with versioning and anybody with proper access can download if they want. This avoids both emailing large files and explaining FTP to users. I would also set a max size on file attachments.

    6. Re:Excellent by MeNeXT · · Score: 2
      I agree and yet disagree. We should meet the users need but attaching 300Mb files and dumping them on their coworkers is not the answer. In the ideal world we would have no storage limits, cpu limits and all trash would be deleted before we received it.


      There will always be limits.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    7. Re:Excellent by reaper20 · · Score: 2

      Agreed. Domino.doc does this on top of Notes/Domino. It even replaces all the Office save dialogs so they have to save it into a repository. For the real sticks in the mud that resist, it even has an explorer looking 'My Domino.doc' icon that they can drag documents into.

    8. Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh certainly. IT does need to fulfil a role

      You sure do. And while you're at it, get off that damn weblog and go change the toner cartidge in the LJ4 up on third floor, mister 'sysadmin.'

  4. ..Up and Down by tolan's+my+name · · Score: 1

    The downside to this is the they wont be open sourcing it. The upside I suppose is that it will be actively developed and will retain its corporate marketshare.

    1. Re:..Up and Down by Woefdram · · Score: 1

      Say, wouldn't this be a nice Open Source project? Developing such a system on completely open standards (call it ReallyOpenMail or so *grin*). With lots of hooks for virus scanners and such.

      --

      Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier

    2. Re:..Up and Down by rikkards · · Score: 2, Informative

      The other downside is that it means users need to use .pst files (this is what some sales guy for Openmail said, it may have changed by now) and PST files can be bad (especially #1) With Exchange you can store everything in the server's database which makes it easier to back up.

    3. Re:..Up and Down by killmenow · · Score: 1

      No, you don't have to use .PST files. You can if you want to...and you can synchronize your server store with your offline folders (pst file).

    4. Re:..Up and Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Developing such a system on completely open standards

      See, that's the problem. Where there isn't already a floor plan to copy, or standards already implemented, there's never any Open Source development going on.

      Open Source is a dismal approach, for the most part, for anything new that requires actual design. It generally relies on either already established standards or on some proprietary existing structure it can copy.

    5. Re:..Up and Down by Woefdram · · Score: 1
      It generally relies on either already established standards or on some proprietary existing structure it can copy.

      Dude, if you want to post, please try to sound a little intelligent. The entire Internet was built on open standards.

      --

      Woefdram, l'apprenti sorcier

    6. Re:..Up and Down by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Well this is what the sales guy said to me. Course this was over a year ago.

  5. ximian by steel+sky · · Score: 0

    I'm still holding ot for a ximian evolution server. That should beat the shit out of either, or at least I'd like to think so. On a side note, The University of Kansas runs exchange and has an average up time of about two weeks. Granted that includes down time for them to install hordes of security updates so people can't just whack the server like a monkey and hack in.

    1. Re:ximian by alen · · Score: 2
      Maybe they don't know what they are doing. The US Army Corps of Engineers runs a netowrk of almost 300 excahnge servers and barring any network related problems it's always up. I worked tech support there for a year and some sites went down because of earthquakes or other "events", but the entire system never went down.



      U of Kansas needs to either hire some decent admins or put some policies in place. The Southern European Task Force deployed MS Exchange back in 1997 and we had problems for the first few years. But it was because there were no mailbox limits set and they kept running out of disk space. It's all in the admins.

    2. Re:ximian by foobar104 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm still holding ot for a ximian evolution server.

      As far as I'm concerned, this will have the same problem that Exchange Server has: its coolest feature (calendaring) is supported in the Linux client only.

      Our enterprise is about evenly split between Windows users and Mac OS X users-- we recently went through a huge rush of employees buying new iBooks. Any email/messaging/whatever platform that requires a specific client must provide that client for both of those operating systems for it to be useful to our company.

      I'm this --> <-- close to giving up and doing the whole thing on the intranet with PHP and Postgresql.

    3. Re:ximian by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

      The Admins @ the University of Kansas are probaly a pack of morons.

      Where I work we run one of the larger Exchange systems in the country, about 100,000 named and 65,000 active users. There are plenty of problems to go around, but uptime isn't one of them.

      The current uptime is about a month, because a pipe burst in the server room, forcing a shutdown. It was up about two months before that.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    4. Re:ximian by Phigs · · Score: 1

      I think a large part of the problem does not rest all in the admins. I think a larger part of it is how funds are distributed in acadamia. Colleges like to give money to services that will make them money in return. I work at a college and watch them stuff as much money as they can into our continuing education program (non-credit, teaching buisnesses) because it has a very good turnover to it. They also put alot of money into student relations because they need to put that first impression on you. Now by the time they are handing all this money out how much do you think goes to the computer budget? Just enough to make it adequate. Unless you are planning on competing with MIT or something then computers arent going to get the same turn over that placing those funds elsewhere would get. When was the last time you visited a college and said "...geeze, i think i wanna go here because they have a really stable e-mail system". It is just one of those things that are overlooked all too often. Now then compare this to the Army Corps of Engineers, you already said that they have 300 servers, and I doubt that any of them are less than adequate. So they have a pretty good cluster of servers running to load balance etc. Alot of colleges do not have this kind of equipment, even if the admins know we need it and want it. At the college I work at we have one (1) Unix sendmail server running, no clustering so downtime is to be expected. Unfortunatly if you need money at the college level you had better be ready to wait in a very long line.

    5. Re:ximian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      U of Kansas needs to either hire some decent admins or put some policies in place.

      While I loathe Exchange, KU's largest Exchange outage was the fault of the SAN falling out from underneath all of the servers as a direct result of Compaq. (And they know it, and have admitted as much.) Get your facts straight before you start badmouthing hard-working admins.

    6. Re:ximian by alen · · Score: 2

      Did I say I worked in U of Kansas? I've personally seen and managed Exchange servers with an uptime of months without reboots. So anytime I hear that someone's server keeps crashing it means bad hardware, bad admins or politics is influencing proper administration of the servers. For example management says no mailbox limits and the server crashes because it runs out of disk space.

    7. Re:ximian by Maledictus · · Score: 1

      "Any email/messaging/whatever platform that requires a specific client must provide that client for both of those operating systems for it to be useful to our company."

      So what are you using?

      I ask because we have such a split as well. Though the Win machines probably outnumber the Macs 2 to 1. We all use Exchange/Outlook for mail, calendaring and contact management. Our biggest issue is some customization I've done in Outlook that simply doesn't show up on the Macs and it's probably more important to them than to most of the PC users.

      But it works for us.

      Shhh...don't tell anyone...but yeah, MS products and "it works" in the same post.

      --
      Consigned to flames of woe.
    8. Re:ximian by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      So what are you using?

      Um... an IMAP server and calendar.yahoo.com.

      The truth is, we have no central scheduling app. We have a bunch of admins with those big spiral-bound calendar books like they use at doctor's offices to write your appointment down in, and then the little card, which you lose, like, immediately, like it doesn't even make it into your pocket somehow, and you miss your appointment and then you get the statement from your HMO that says they paid for the visit anyway, and you wonder if you've just accidentally committed insurance fraud.

    9. Re:ximian by Maledictus · · Score: 1

      "The truth is, we have no central scheduling app."

      I guess we're really in the same boat. Except that my aforementioned Outlook "customization" *is* a scheduling app! It's a custom form published to a public folder.

      Of course, the only people who can use it are folks who are either here at the plant or "dialed in" through PCAnywhere. Or the Macs running Virtual PC. Or you can get a stripped down version through Outlook Web Access. Or the Mac people can go over to a Windoze machine. (Which they hate, and I don't blame them being a former MacHead myself.)

      So we're running your basic Exchange/Outlook fiasco that is, yes, the technical equivalent of the fatass notebook stuffed with post-its and ragged business cards. I tell the users that the best backup they have is the laser printer down the hall...

      So. You know. I feel your pain.

      --
      Consigned to flames of woe.
  6. Outlook but not exchange? by wickidpisa · · Score: 1

    How many people are there going to bethat are so ingrained with Microsoft products that they insist on using Outlook despite its many many flaws, yet they are willing to choose anything other than exchange?

    1. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Those who have windows users with laptops who can't understand any other mail client, but the admins run a 'proper' shop and have Exim on their MXs.
      Just tell them that it _is_ exchange (honest) and they'll shut up and go away, happy that they've thrown a buzzword at you that makes them look knowlegable.
      Cynic? Of course not, what makes you say that?

    2. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by killmenow · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We use OpenMail. I read about the discontinuing development last February with much sadness.

      When I heard about the deal with Samsung a few weeks ago (we got a letter), I was pleased. I had already read what Bruce Perens had said about open sourcing it...it just wasn't going to happen. He would've like it to (as would I) but there was too much code licensed from third parties, etc. that would have to be re-written before it could be open-sourced, and the whole point was: they weren't developing it anymore.

      At any rate, when I came on board at my present employer, the front end client (Outlook) was deeply embedded into the environment here. I am still working on weening people off of it. But the great thing about OpenMail is that I can let them keep Outlook if they want. Believe it or not, when dealt with properly, Outlook is not so bad. The end-users love it. They really don't know and don't care what happens behind the scenes.

      OpenMail gives me the flexibility to use any IMAP/LDAP client I want, or the web interface if I so choose, or Outlook. It lets the Outlook users have a system directory, shared folders, and shared calendars...all nice features...without buying into Exchange. It also lets me control what the Outlook users can do. Every time they connect to the server, I can send them a MOTD, reset their security settings to my way, and force all incoming/outgoing mail to be plain text if I so please. I can limit the size of their mailboxes, and I can set up gateways to just about every other type of messaging system I want. I can scan for viruses in attachments at the server and force Outlook to block all attachments of an executable type...whether the server detects a virus or not.

      As for the administrative tools, the command line tools are the bomb, but take some getting used to...and the GUI admin client basically sucks.

      Overall, I love OpenMail and was glad to pay for the licenses. We have about 100 users hitting the server via Outlook, Netscape Mail, the Web interface, and we even have a whole department with old DOS PCs, accessing their mail via a packet driver and PC-PINE!!! (They refuse to upgrade because it works for them and as the adage goes...if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)

    3. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by Chazmyrr · · Score: 2, Informative

      We use OpenMail. I read about the discontinuing development last February with great happiness.

      My servers run NT. I would have preferred *NIX but it would have taken another year or two of paperwork to get the purchase order for *NIX boxes through management. I want my servers to send email notifications when certain events occur. Normally, I would just use the windows messaging API. Unfortunately, the OpenMail MAPI drivers refuse to resolve addresses outside of Outlook. I get a lot of 'net send' messages these days.

      In client side processes, I was able to automate email. I had to get a reference to an Outlook folder and use that to create and send the message, but it works. Mostly. Trying to send a message to Doe, John when there is also a Doe, John C. in the OpenMail address book gives an ambiguous address error.

      The real problem with anything from HP is that they couldn't write a decent driver if their life depended on it.

    4. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by killmenow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Trying to send a message to Doe, John when there is also a Doe, John C. in the OpenMail address book gives an ambiguous address error.
      We have had similar issues...and that address resolution is probably the one thing about OpenMail that has been a bother, now that you mention it. But, we worked around it in this way:

      1. Ensure every user has a valid and unique internet e-mail address
      2. send e-mails via SMTP when events occur.
      3. Use aliases or distribution lists so you're sending e-mails to roles instead of names (like admin or support instead of Doe, John)

      We do this for several applications and it works fine.
    5. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Just tell them that it _is_ exchange (honest) and they'll shut up and go away, happy that they've thrown a buzzword at you that makes them look knowlegable.

      And then one of them will try to schedule a meeting with the group calendar feature, only to find that his Outlook isn't configured for Exchange after all, and he'll be all confused. He'll call you for help.

      If you worked for me, I'd fucking fire you on the spot.

      Lying to your users-- whether they're your peers or your bosses or your subordinates-- is never okay.

    6. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      Every time they connect to the server, I can send them a MOTD, reset their security settings to my way, and force all incoming/outgoing mail to be plain text if I so please.

      How does that work, exactly?

      If the message includes both an HTML part and a text part, I guess you could strip the HTML part and assume the text part contains the entire message.

      But what if there is only the HTML part? Does OpenMail (or whatever does what you referred to) just change the MIME type but leave the content alone? Then every recipient will get an email full of raw HTML source, and the user won't know until he starts getting complaints from recipients-- obviously non-optimal.

      Or does OpenMail try to somehow intelligently convert the HTML into plain text, dropping all the formatting but keeping important things like line and paragraph breaks?

      Either way, I'd expect that it wouldn't work all that well. Is there something going on with OpenMail that allows it to do what you said in some way that doesn't destroy messages?

    7. Re:Outlook but not exchange? by killmenow · · Score: 1

      How does that work, exactly?
      Well, I'm not sure how it works. There are settings in OpenMail's configuration to force outgoing messages to plain text. I think it does something like this (but haven't really looked into it):
      1. if message is going out RTF format, Outlook usually sends a plain text version and a body.rtf file, so OpenMail just kills the body.rtf piece.
      2. if message is formatted HTML, I think Outlook does the same thing, so OpenMail just drops the html piece.
      3. if it is just one piece, with no body.rtf attached, no msmail.dat attachment, and no other attachment...I don't know what it does. I guess I should check into that.

      As for incoming mail, it does something similar...dropping body.rtf and msmail.dat or winmail or whatever that stupid attachment is Outlook likes to send with messages. If it's HTML only with no other piece, it may let it through...I haven't really tried that...hmm.

      Alternatively, for outbound, I think there may be a setting to force Outlook to set its format to Plain Text every time it connects to OpenMail...again, I'll have to check into it.

      For inbound, even if OpenMail doesn't handle the HTML translation well, I can always use NoHTML instead.
  7. This combined with Evoluton exchange client by Publicus · · Score: 1

    It would be great it we could get some choices in this market. I only worry that not enough people will become aware of their options. That, however, would collide with the attitude among the higher ups in my company: When there is only one option, you can't make a wrong decision. As more options become available in the marketplace I think we'll see a shakeout of bad IT managers as their inability to make good decisions becomes more evident. I think there's a lot of cost cutting to be done in a lot of IT departments. Email would be a great place to start.

    --

    My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!

  8. The day will come.... by ruvreve · · Score: 1

    If Samsung is smart they will recruit support from palm or any number of other PDA companies so that when/if Openmail gets a larger portion of the market share users can continue to sync their contacts and datebooks. It may not seem crucial now but 10 years ago nobody needed more then 640k memory.

    1. Re:The day will come.... by killmenow · · Score: 1

      Not sure I follow you...but if you're suggesting they add PDA support to OpenMail, they already have. They have a direct OpenMail client that runs on Palm devices and WinCE devices.

  9. What is this slew you speak of? by Mike+Connell · · Score: 2

    a whole slew of Microsoft Outlook features - something necessary in the enterprise

    Can somebody tell me what these features are, compared to what you'd get with sendmail/qmail / some-random-pop/imap-client ?

    1. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by duffbeer703 · · Score: 2

      Shared calenders, meeting scheduling, notes, public folders, ldap integration.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    2. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Mr.Phil · · Score: 1
      Can somebody tell me what these features are, compared to what you'd get with sendmail/qmail / some-random-pop/imap-client ?

      I'd make a wager it's things like calander sharing, address book sharing a la LDAP, note setup for meetings and scheduling. Newer versions have things like concurrent developement of documents and other nifty features, or so I'm told.

    3. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Cyno · · Score: 1


      Features besides email in an email client? I think the features they are talking about are things like calendar support, etc. I don't see why they are so important for an organization, however, since I've always thought that your mail client should be your mail client, not your toaster or PDA. Similar to web clients it seems the M$ world has everything backwards. Not only do they think your browser should be your OS, they think your mail client should serve you coffee and that must be supported by your mail servers as well.

      Well, I for one, have used some betas of evolution, and from what I can tell it handles email better than any client I've used before including outlook. So why bother with all those extra features you don't need to get hooked on and start implementing a corporate PDA system alongside your stable working email network. This is why we learned to network in the first place, isn't it?

    4. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by sql*kitten · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can somebody tell me what these features are, compared to what you'd get with sendmail/qmail / some-random-pop/imap-client ?

      Well, for example, if I want to schedule a meeting, I can invite all the people I want via Outlook/Exchange, and it will check their calendars to see if they're free, and if they are, send them a message that when it is opened will automatically fill in their calendars for them, if they say they do want to come. That's just a simple example. The reason all these macro virii can be written at all is that Outlook/Exchange isn't really an email solution per se: it's intended to be a platform for building groupware / workflow / directory applications on, so it's all very scriptable. Shared folders, contacts, task lists and diaries are wonderfully useful in an office where people move around a lot and can be hard to get hold of in person. And all this ties into project management software (MS Project) for really serious tracking.

      Email's the easy bit, and you can't compete with sendmail+popper+imapd if that's all you need, because they're free and easy to use. Exchange, like Lotus Notes, is sold on value-add. Just think of Notes as document management with messaging functionality, and Exchange as messaging with document management functionality.

    5. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At a previous company I was the victim of
      an MSEXCHANGE implementation. The most
      notable result of these scheduling features
      that you speak of was...., lots of meetings.
      I mean LOTS of meetings, excessive meetings mean
      less work being completed.

      To overgeneralize, in an information type
      organization there are people who work
      and there are people who subsist on meetings
      and there are people who balance meeting and
      working. Exchange seems to empower the all
      meetings and no work group.

      I get along just fine with people emailing me
      to request my attendance at a meeting, I then
      consult the calender and say yes or no. And
      they don't need to no what my calender looks
      like and often my work load is fluid enough
      that it cannot be entered into a stupid ms
      calendar. Leave exchange behind for both
      this and its noticably poor stability/hardware
      ratio.

    6. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by -brazil- · · Score: 1
      I don't see why they are so important for an organization


      Apparently you've never tried to organize anything
      that requires five or more people with full schedules to agree on an appointment.


      I've always thought that your
      mail client should be your mail client, not your toaster or PDA.


      Scheduling a meeting requires the people who are involved to communicate, i.e. send messages. Therefore, it actually makes sense to integrate such functionality with the mail client/server.

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    7. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      I think the features they are talking about are things like calendar support, etc. I don't see why they are so important for an organization, however, since I've always thought that your mail client should be your mail client, not your toaster or PDA.

      Have you ever used Outlook in a non-fubared Exchange environment? If you had, I doubt that you would make such a statement.

      Our sales guys have to manage an incredible amount of contact and schedule information-- sometimes two or three hundred events a week for each of them! ("Events" include phone calls, which the sales manager requires them to log, and of which there are many.) Every time we bring in a new sales guy I have to answer the question: we used Exchange at my last company to do all this; why aren't we using Exchange here? And every time I have to give the "half of our employees don't use Windows and could not use Exchange; setting up a complete system for only half of the staff isn't something we can spend resources to do" speech. It's getting harder and harder as we grow to resist their logic. If it worked properly, an Outlook/Exchange system would work very well for those guys. I just don't wanna mess with making it work properly.

      But because the sales guys directly pay my salary, as they do in most companies, I'm pretty close to telling them that I'll implement whatever the heck they want.

    8. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a huge Rolodex, don't you?

      Do all the secretaries admire it when they think you're not looking?

    9. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1
      You're confusing Outlook (the client) with exchange (the server).

      Meeting scheduling - Evolution can do this

      Notes - Evolution can do this

      Public Folders - Any imap server can do this.

      LDAP integration - Clients and Servers have Ldap integration.

      Shared Calendars is the thing that is missing from open source applications.

      But it is coming... reefknot.

    10. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      What's the half that don't use Windows use? If it's Mac, I'd be interested in helping you find a solution that will meet everybody's needs and cross platforms. Write me. There may be applications and groupware for the Mac that you're not familiar with.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    11. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by yomahz · · Score: 1

      ldap integration

      Well, qmail supports ldap integration but it sure lacks the other features :)

      --
      "A mind is a terrible thing to taste."
    12. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem you describe is not of a technical art, but of a social art. So how you got to your conclusion of poor stability/hardware ratio is beyond me.

      If you don't want/have time to attend meetings, just talk to your coworkers, and don't accept the meetings in Outlook. That shouldn't be too hard. But of course it's always easier to blame something else. You might also try to start some meetings on your own, without Outlook if you like. It's good to do stuff you're uncomfortable with.

    13. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and what ONE application can do it. Well Outlook seems to come to mind.

    14. Re:What is this slew you speak of? by Cyno · · Score: 1

      i.e. send messages

      i.e. email. It makes sense to what? Integrate email functionality with email cients and browsers? That makes no sense whatsoever. Email clients and browsers should already possess such functionality. And scheduling meetings isn't a very difficult task. I personally choose not to do such horrible things to my coworkers, but sometimes companies want productivity. Heh, your guess is as good as mine there. Did you know that a productive TEAM can cooporate without the need for meetings and still keep members informed through the use of email and mailing lists?

  10. Oh please let it die!!! by Daeslin · · Score: 0, Informative

    Okay, I used to be a unix/openmail admin for a large financial firm. We run OpenMail on Solaris with Applix as the clients. And I gotta say, the product sucked big time. While a bit part of the problem was HP (i.e. we used to have to argue with their tech support that they actually had a Solaris port of OpenMail), but it also had some rather annoying technical limitations. I think some of the are fixed now (i.e. all of the user mail were stored in database(ish) file owned by openmail but their connections were processes running as the user, so for any mail mod operation, the system had to chown the file to the user and then back for it to work. The system was consistantly 80% I/O bound).

    But even with some technical fixes and getting it away from the mismanagement of HP, I'd still be leary of it. The thing would pop numeric error codes that the developers themselves couldn't tell you what they meant. It had the bizare way of storing paths to files within its files by encoding a 6 letter filename in a 4 byte word by string 6 5 bit bitpatterns together. I spent a week reverse engineering the file formats once because the new version couldn't export personal address lists stored by an older version of the product and my head about exploded. But most telling was the fact that it didn't even protect itself from buggy clients. Applix could cause it to leak file descriptors, and HP would refuse to fix the bug because they maintained that the client was misbehaving (of course, applix maintained that what they were doing was allowed by the API).

    Please, use IMAP, screw exchangesque stuff.

    --

    I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
    1. Re:Oh please let it die!!! by killmenow · · Score: 1

      We run OpenMail on Linux and it is smooth as silk. I find it to be a fantastic product. What version was it when you were using it? We started w/ 6.0 and are just now migrating to 7.

    2. Re:Oh please let it die!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you re: the screw exchangeesque stuff but ....

      I wasn't the mail admin, but I contracted for a worldwide concern - their North American mail server was an HP9000 running OpenMail, and I noted no signifigant problems for over a year, and based on their comments it had been rock solid for a 'long' time. Until the mail admin found a better (paying) job and jumped.

      I don't know the internal politics, but for reasons known only to God and IT directors the mail admin chore was handed to the Help Desk supervisor. Nice lady, didn't know much about actually 'working' with computers.

      The backups started failing. The server started going 'phhht' for no good reason in the middle of the day. Someone convinced them that they really needed a new disk array, so they purchased an expensive one from EMC.

      The move to the new disk array went bad. Mail was down (for North America) for nearly 6 days longer than the promised 4 hours. There weren't good backups made for the preceeding month ... and a large chunk of email / attachments was sent to the bit bucket.

      Just my .02 cents - like many things, it worked well while someone with a clue was in charge.

    3. Re:Oh please let it die!!! by Daeslin · · Score: 1

      I started working with it shortly after our firm moved from v. 4 to 5 (or B.04 to B.05 in HP parlance). And I did read that they fixed the ownership I/O problems in 6.

      I suspect that some of our problems were due to using a port that HP regretted having ever made. As I mentioned, we were running it on Solaris and eventually came to the conclusion that we were the only U.S. customers running on that platform. We usually ended up having to get support out of England. We also eventually discovered that HP didn't even do the Solaris port but contracted it out to another shop.

      --

      I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
  11. Here it comes.. by ChadAmberg · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sheesh... If all of you weren't so damn scared of Lotus Notes. Runs on Linux, S/390, Solaris, NT, ASS/400 (yes, the extra S is there on purpose), and others I'm sure I'm forgetting.

    It may be a bit different from what you're used to, but it supports, IMAP, POP3, SMTP, and HTTP(S) methods to access your mail easily..

    1. Re:Here it comes.. by Cesaro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It is also #1 in the user interface hall of shame, is horrendous on server and space requirement and from everyone I talked to who runs one, it goes down more than a prostitute with an inner ear problem.

    2. Re:Here it comes.. by mrfiddlehead · · Score: 1

      Try changing folders on a dialup connection to see why not to use notes.

      --
      :wq
    3. Re:Here it comes.. by The+Turbinator · · Score: 1

      j0o Ph34r!

    4. Re:Here it comes.. by EricLivingston · · Score: 1

      Lotus Notes's group calendaring is not as strong as Exchange. For organizations (like mine) that depend on this feature, Exchange is worth it. I would, in fact, use Exchange for email and group calendaring while at the same time use Notes for group databases and general KM applications, as that is really where it shines in my opinion.

      --
      Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
    5. Re:Here it comes.. by reaper20 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Isn't it true that you can run a Notes/Domino backend but keep Outlook as the client?

      Also, isn't Notes Rnext or whatever coming soon?

    6. Re:Here it comes.. by bittmann · · Score: 1

      For what it's worth, I've basically come to the conclusion that Users don't give a hoot about Exchange/OpenMail/Notes/whatever. What the USERS want is "the Outlook experience".

      People point to "usability studies" and "feature reviews" that support their assertions of the superiority of &lt$Platform_A&gt over &lt$Other_Platforms&gt. When you get down to the bottom of the matter, it usually boils down to "I use message collaboration, so I like Outlook" versus "I use work collaboration, so I like Notes".

      If your employer is bound and determined to run Outlook (mine is), one option for a Notes/Domino shop is to install the iNotes product along side of Domino...it allows for (basically) 100% Outlook usability, so your users are getting what they want...the aforementioned "experience"...while you get to avoid installing new servers/painful migration/Microsoft Tax/whatever. See Lotus iNotes for a quick run-down on iNotes. To sweeten the pot, the next version of Domino called (imaginitively) "Rnext" should have most of this functionality included. See notes.net/rnext" if you're interested (including beta server downloads for Linux/AIX/Solaris/Sparc/WinNT/Win2K).

      With the client delt with, your only remaining problem is now to deal with the relatively few "server" bigots in the equation. While they (I?) am just as prejudiced in their views as the next guy, never underestimate the power of *accountability* to influence the actions of knowledgable people.

      don't overestimate it, either!

    7. Re:Here it comes.. by ChadAmberg · · Score: 1

      Yup. You can either use MAPI/IMAP/POP3 for mailing, and LDAP for address book lookups. Against my Notes server, I hit it either with the Notes client, LookOut, LookOut Express, Netscape Mail, or the Web client, all at the same time. And, the best part is, it doesn't require the Internet Infection Server to run the Web interface...

    8. Re:Here it comes.. by ChadAmberg · · Score: 1

      Does Exchange still require you to have a separate client system just to schedule conference rooms?

    9. Re:Here it comes.. by killmenow · · Score: 1

      And, the best part is, it doesn't require the Internet Infection Server to run the Web interface...
      Niether does OpenMail. Apache does just fine.
    10. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, the Lotus Notes I use randomly rejects meeting invitations even when there is time available. The user interface (even version 5) is legendarily bad. Synchronizing locks up everything (can't edit a message while incoming mail is checked for which can take up to a minute). No one can tell me how to do something as simple as search all folders for an email body containing string "foo" (if it is possible, why hide it so that dozens of people can't find it?). If you conclude that I work for some tiny company with no IT department you are wrong. There are about 300,000 of us and I have yet to meet an employee that actually likes Lotus products.

      Microsoft may be the Evil Empire but Office/Exchange/Outlook are several orders of magnitude better than the Lotus products.

    11. Re:Here it comes.. by overturf · · Score: 1

      That was missing functionality in Outlook, not Exchange -- and no. Not for years. Automatic resource scheduling was added to the client in OL2k, I believe.

    12. Re:Here it comes.. by uslinux.net · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Runs on Linux, S/390, Solaris, NT...


      Does it? Has IBM started supporting a Linux Notes client in the last 9 months? Domino is supported (though 9 months ago, most, but not all features we there). Notes is the client, Domino is the server.



      As an aside: I did an evaluation a year ago of Domino 5, Exchange 2000, HP Openmail, Sendmail, iPlanet, and Communigate Pro. Basically, Communigate was a great Sendmail replacement because it had a good interface, came with IMAP, POP, SSL support, etc. But, if users wanted group calendaring and all that jazz, you needed Domino, Exchange, or Openmail. I liked Openmail best, but some HP reps told me in January 2000 at LinuxWorld in NYC that Openmail 6 was the last release.



      Sigh. I really wish HP would OpenSource Openmail (hey, it's already got a great open source name). HP can strip out all the proprietary code (fine with me), and leave the OpenSource community to add the functionality back in. Maybe development would continue, maybe not. In any case, there would at leats be a *chance* it would continue.



      Hey, maybe someone can pick up openopenmail.org :-)

    13. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you try and move a connection document to a different folder?

      At some point you have to have users with some intelligence. Otherwise, maybe we should just give them crayolas, Big Chief Tablets, and have them send their email by making paper airplanes.

    14. Re:Here it comes.. by CrayzyJ · · Score: 1

      Newer versions of Domino are FAR more stable than the earlier versions. The UI isn't bad once you get used to it.

      --
      Holy s-, it's Jesus!
    15. Re:Here it comes.. by ValiantButter · · Score: 1

      Try working in your local replica instead of working on the server thru a 24k connection and you'll see why you're using Notes the wrong way.

    16. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It is also #1 in the user interface hall of >shame [iarchitect.com], is horrendous on server >and space requirement and from everyone I talked >to who runs one, it goes down more than a >prostitute with an inner ear problem.

      Your first point is arguable (I don't agree, but it is very subjective.

      As for the other points, they are simply not true. The resource requirements are not unreasonable when you compare it to similar applications (Exchange for example). I'm not sure who you talked to about Domino reliability (maybe they work for MS :) Domino is extremely stable if you have it setup correctly and stick to proven releases (don't upgrade to new versions unless you have an issue, or the version has been proven to be stable.)

    17. Re:Here it comes.. by jtosburn · · Score: 1

      I'd love to use Notes. It'll never happen, though.

      Why? 35 installed seats with MS Outlook, that's why. Purchasing 35 Notes clients plus the server plus (albeit meager) user training, vs. just buying Exchange (since we already own the client) is a tough sell. Long term value vs. short term savings loses if it takes people away from what's familiar, and to them works tolerably well.

      MS knew damn well what they were doing when they created Oulook, bundled it with MS Office without raising that suite's price, and made offers to all major system OEMs that couldn't be refused: using the power of it's desktop monopoly to muscle it's way into new markets.

      What I really want is a decent, open source calendar server that uses iCal. It's enough to make this admin start learning something about programming...

    18. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really think that Exchange would be better for a company with 300,000 people? I would have pity for the poor bastards that got jobs as exchange administrators for a company of that size. What is the recommendation for numbers of users per server for exchange? Last time I saw the numbers, due to "issues" with exchange (post 16 GB size limit) most companies were trying to keep a max of around 300 users per server (even then they tend to keep a fairly small quota for mailbox size.) That would make around 1000 servers! With Domino on NT you can easily run several thousand on one server, and you can run tens of thousands on one server if you want to switch to another platform (I know, you can run even more if you run a standard POP3/IMAP server, but that is more an apples to oranges comparison, since they have much more limited features.)

      I agree about the problem with the interface locking when perfoming certain tasks, but this is more of an irritation, than a real problem. (Notes isn't actually crashing, it just doesn't restore control to you until it finishes the task.) There is a promised fix/change in RNext.

      Is your email full text indexed ? (click on "File", "Database", "Properties", then select the next to last tab (the magnifying glass). You can create an index by clicking on "create index" (as long as your administrators have not removed the rights from you by lowering your access to your mail file. If they did, you need to have them create the index for you)

    19. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Domino RNext uses apache as well.

    20. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, we're all impressed with your leet mad skilz. Ooh, baby, ooh.

    21. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the situation with Notes, the Exchange Server actually does almost none of the groupware work and depends on Outlook for this stuff to work. Exchange just handles the database and the network stuff (replication, connectors, etc).

    22. Re:Here it comes.. by t482 · · Score: 1

      Yes its called iNotes. AIX and Solaris are supported - Linux is supported in the Next version

    23. Re:Here it comes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, FYI, the copy of Outlook that comes with Office is NOT (by itself) a legal Exchange client.

      You need to buy Exchange Client Access Licences for each user. The CALs give you the right to run Outlook, with or without a Office licence.

      Once you are legal, you should find that the cost is about the same as Notes (or cheaper, because Notes doesn't require a NT CAL and Exchange does).

      But for 35 users, take my advice and don't run either and just get a free/cheap IMAP server. There's not enough calendering going on to warrent the price, and Notes really isn't worth it unless you have a developer.

  12. virii? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  13. Its the shared calendar by ahornby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    With exchange the calendar is shared between users, so you can do things like schedule meetings without having to phone round first.

    The Evolution calendar stuff has all the features needed except that your calendar isn't accessible to other users.

    Hopefully someone will write a free iCal server and an evolution backend to it.

    --
    -- Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold.
  14. The Chicken and the Egg by div_2n · · Score: 1

    I don't remain convinced about the decision makers thinking it is loaded with necessary features. Instead, I think it is because there is a significant amount of techs/companies/consultants that claim to have experience and knowledge of exchange. Therefore they justify finding someone to support it will be easy. I find this extremely amusing since if every company suddenly shifted to open source, MCSE's everywhere would be hitting the books for open source. The chicken and the egg.

    If I were to try to point out why people are drawn to Exchange, it is because these companies are already deeply stuck in Microsoft territory. I am a big open source advocate so don't take these next statements the wrong way.

    Microsoft does a really good job (mostly lately) of their products playing well with each other. In less than an hour, you can have a good VB app up and running that can interoperate with any and all of MS servers. Query a SQL Server, send mail through an Exchange server, even query a domain controller for a list of all user accounts.

    Is this really the greatest thing since sliced bread? No, but it is this sort of interoperability that is seeping deep into the ears of management and making them approve purchase requests for MS powered servers left and right. "What, we can make it all work together relatively easy? We don't have to hire more people to make it work? GREAT! Where is my pen?"

    1. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by alen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exchange is actually one of Microsoft's best products. Unlike the NT registry and SAM database it's based on LDAP and a dumbed down SQL database engine. In addition to the workgroup features like calendars, team folders, public folders it has a ton of other great features.

      One is called Deleted Item Retention Time. You set the number of days and when a user deletes an email it's not really deleted for the specified days. If he realizes he made a mistake restoration is from the Outlook client and takes seconds saving the admin time from going to the back up tapes. For businesses like law firms it's a life saver since they are required to keep records and emails for five years or so. They simply buy a lot of storage and set a deleted item retention item of 1600 days or so and it's a secondary back up.

      A second feature is single instance storage. You send a file out to 50 people it gets stored once in the database saving you storage space.

      Then third party back up programs have a feature called brick level back up's where you can back up individual mailboxes. If you delete on by accident restoration is simple. Exchange 2000 has this feature out of the box.

      Exchange is scalable. It's overkill for small offices and I've supported it for a government agency with 35,000 employees and 300 Exchange servers. It scales very well.

      A good Exchange anti-virus program like Trend Micro Scanmail 3.7 has file blocking features and greatly eases the management of your anti-virus strategy.

      Since email is in a database searching for messages is easy.

      And the global address book is great. Users don't have to keep their own huge address book and greatly minimizes the calls to the admin of I sent out this email but it came back returned and asking you to track down an email address.

      Sure you can cobble together a few products for most of the functionality and perform some of the usability features manually, but you'll spend more time while the CEO is asking you to restore an email from a year ago.

    2. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Captain+Pedantic · · Score: 0

      Exchange is scalable. It's overkill for small offices and I've supported it for a government agency with 35,000 employees and 300 Exchange servers. It scales very well.

      At an average of 116 users per exchange server you haven't convinced me that it scales well. Even if you had 30 servers instead of 300 I still wouldn't be very impressed.

      --

      None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.
    3. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by alen · · Score: 3, Informative

      In USASETAF we had thousands of users on each exchange server and except for running out of disk space because of no mailbox limits it worked well. But that was the admins and a political issue. My office in US Army Corps of Engineers we had 140 users on ours and only had one problem in the year I was there. But isinteg works very well. My present job we have a server with over 300 users and a ew other servers with 150 users each. All works well. I never touch exchange except to make new mailboxes or delete terminated employees.

      The main thing is the hardware. You need a good SCSI adapter and plenty or RAM. 512MB is good enough for 140 users.

    4. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      I like how it corrupts its Jet (Access) database and loses email. I also like the "bad message" feature that crashes store.exe. And the extremely slow message delivery via IMAP. Oh, and the open relay feature.

      35,000 mailboxes on 300 servers, huh? Wow, that's like, 116 mailboxes per server. Yeah, scales really well. You would need a multiple of that number of machines if you ran an SMTP/IMAP/LDAP setup on Unix. Of course, the multiplier would be something like 0.01, but...

      I've found that not using Outlook and Exchange greatly eases my anti-virus strategy. I suppose if you have a global address book of 35,000 people, 20 of whom any given person would need to actually correspond with, then you reall want to keep those Melissa-type microsoft viruses under control.

      We used a unix-based email system at my previous company, and hey! I could back up individual mailboxes. "Brick level backup." Snort. And since email was stored in regular files, searching for messages was easy. My CEO had dat tapes going back into the 80s with his email on it.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    5. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by tzanger · · Score: 2

      One is called Deleted Item Retention Time. You set the number of days and when a user deletes an email it's not really deleted for the specified days. If he realizes he made a mistake restoration is from the Outlook client and takes seconds saving the admin time from going to the back up tapes. For businesses like law firms it's a life saver since they are required to keep records and emails for five years or so. They simply buy a lot of storage and set a deleted item retention item of 1600 days or so and it's a secondary back up.

      Just out of curiosity, how do you get an email back when it's deleted when the only thing on tape is a collection of large proprietary binary files which make up the entire private mail store?

      Then third party back up programs have a feature called brick level back up's where you can back up individual mailboxes. If you delete on by accident restoration is simple. Exchange 2000 has this feature out of the box.

      Answered my own question, I suppose. :-)

      And the global address book is great. Users don't have to keep their own huge address book and greatly minimizes the calls to the admin of I sent out this email but it came back returned and asking you to track down an email address.

      Perhaps I'm using it totally wrong but at least in Exchange Server 5.5 the GAL is for local mailboxes only. This was years ago but we had to create a public folder and use Outlook to store contacts in it.

      Sure you can cobble together a few products for most of the functionality and perform some of the usability features manually, but you'll spend more time while the CEO is asking you to restore an email from a year ago.

      I'll be the first to admit that Exchange Server and Outlook are one killer combination. However like I have stated several times over the years, I'll be god-damned if I'm going to lock up my company's data like that. The data store is proprietary. The access tools are proprietary. Maybe I'm getting old and crochety but I've been bit before (too many times in fact) to just let it go. I want to be able to get the format of the data files and protocols so that when I want to do X I can go do it, hire someone to do it or otherwise do what the hell I want with my data, when I want and without some motherly giant cooing "Now now, dear. You don't really need to do it like that."

    6. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1

      Maybe they have 300 offices and don't want the Outlook traffic sent over the WAN.

    7. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by alen · · Score: 2

      Back up software has a MS Exchange aware back up agent for online backups. We use Veritas Netback up datacenter. As for deleted item retention time it was introduced in SP3 and all you have to do is go to deleted items folder, click on tools menu and select restore deleted items. You then get a choice to restore a single message or multiple messages.

      As for the GAL you can either create custom receipents or setup directory synchronization with other organizations. It's more a feature for government agencies and companies with thousands of employees.

    8. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1
      > I like how it corrupts its Jet (Access) database

      Just because it's "Jet" based doesn't make it an Access database. Perhaps some of the problems you had were because you tried to open it up in Access to look at the pretty tables? With all the problems you list, isn't it possible you might have configured something incorrectly? Crashing, corrupted message stores, slow mail delivery, open relay... Hmm...

      >35,000 mailboxes on 300 servers, huh? Wow, that's like, 116 mailboxes per server. Yeah, scales really well.

      Again, maybe they have 300 offices. Just because a company chooses to have 300 servers doesn't mean it's a limitation of the software scalability. Come on... oracle proposes to host their entire world-wide network on a single email server/cluster in California. Yeah, that'll be fast for the thousands of email users in China (or anywhere) connected over a slow and/or loaded WAN pipe.

      > And since email was stored in regular files, searching for messages was easy.

      Searching for messages is easy on Exchange too, with full-text indexing. How much space does your email store take up with each message for each user stored individually? Lots!

      How much space and time does it take to deliver an email with a 1mb PPT attachment to all 1200 of your executives (1200 mb + time to deliver to each and every file-based mailbox in the file system)? On Exchange, that same email could potentially take less than a second to deliver to all 1200 execs, and take just a smidge over 1mb to store!

    9. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by alen · · Score: 2

      Forgot to add The US Army Corps of Engineers has 35,000 employees in the US, Europe, Asia, Middle East and South America. And they don't have a full ATM backbone with unlimited bandwith. THe still use frame relay on a lot of circuits so local exchange servers are a must.

    10. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by 4of12 · · Score: 2

      Wow, that's like, 116 mailboxes per server. Yeah, scales really well.

      Well, yes, you're right.

      A single Linux box with sendmail and imap would seem to be a lot more capable.

      My workplace generally uses MS Exchange and they do indeed require more servers and tinier inboxes than I am accustomed to in a Unix environment. Probably the license fees are higher, too.

      But, to be fair, I think the reason those Exchange servers only handle a fraction of the workload is that they are really being asked to do a lot more work behind the scenes: running SQL, running LDAP, managing calendars, deleting vbs attachments and replacing them with text messages before the Lookout clients get hold of them, providing GUIs to the admins, etc. I have to think a Unix server doing all those things would be burdened, too.

      The users are generally quite happy using Exchange, except for the viri and for the limitations on their mailbox sizes and occasional mysteries about old backed-up email disappearing.

      Interestingly, though, we have UNIX based sendmail servers ahead of the Exchange servers, which makes for a nice fast means of checking inbound mail. It costs nothing and gives a layer of protection and flexibility.

      On my end as a user, I'll use fetchmail when my inbox is migrated from local and NFS mountable mbox files to whatever the format is on the Exchange server.

      Exchange reliability has been pretty good since a few teething problems a month or two after it was installed. It's not quite where it should be: the Goner worm caused the Exchange admins to shutdown service for a few hours, which inconvenienced more than a few users. Otherwise, it's been humming for a couple of years.

      Exchange is a good product. I would really hate to see it used as lever for lockin, but I fear it might.

      FWIW, Domino was a very close contender in our evaluation process. I have no idea what its capabilities are these days, but you should probably take a look at it, too.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    11. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Just because it's "Jet" based doesn't make it an Access database.

      Yeah, I suppose that Access databases are Jet databases doesn't matter.

      Perhaps some of the problems you had were because you tried to open it up in Access to look at the pretty tables?

      Uh, yeah. NO.

      With all the problems you list, isn't it possible you might have configured something incorrectly?

      Always possible, but not in this case.

      Crashing

      Bug, documented by Microsoft; applied suggested Microsoft fix. Fix does not always work.

      corrupted message stores

      Bug, documented by Microsoft, when related to "bad message" problem. Storage of all mail in single file increases chance of damage to mail store due to disk corruption and other hardware problems, or uncleanly closing the database (i.e., when exchange crashes). If IMS hands off a message to STORE.EXE, then STORE crashes before it's in the database, mail disappears. I've seen it happen.

      slow mail delivery

      IMAP on exchange is just not fast. 500MHz server, 512MB RAM, SCSI disks, 16 users, not heavily loaded, exchange delivers mail to imap clients much more slowly than less capable hardware running IMAPd on unix.

      open relay

      Not exchange servers I've configured, but it's the default settings. Check your SPAM headers sometime.

      1mb PPT attachment to all 1200 of your executives

      I don't have 1200 executives. However, let's play your game. In the 300 remote-servers example, you would not be delivering the attachment once, by the way. You would be delivering it at least 300 times. So, not "just a smidge over 1MB"

      Granted, the general idea of using a database to store mail is a nice one, for this specific reason -- multiple delivery of email.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    12. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by div_2n · · Score: 1

      As opposed to thousands of users connecting to a Linux box with a P2 400 and 128 megs of RAM running sendmail?

    13. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by shyster · · Score: 2
      Just because it's "Jet" based doesn't make it an Access database.

      Yeah, I suppose that Access databases are Jet databases doesn't matter.

      Just like a square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square?

      I believe the Jet engine is at the core of Access, but it's now known as MSDE, and is really a stripped version of MS-SQL Server.

    14. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah. You're talking about a crude 80's era email server that pushes little ASCII files about.

      Exchange is much more. What are you even doing in this discussion, about an HP product that DOES compete with Exchange, if you don't understand what these collaborative groupware products do?

    15. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by alen · · Score: 2

      And an Exchange server does a lot more than sendmail. I know all the hardcore unix geeks think that everything past pop3 and smtp connectivity is bloat, but real users love these features. And it makes management easier. Who wants to send 50 emails to schedule a meeting when you have shared calendars and the manager can send out a tasking?

      The reason MS is so successful is because the geeks who run the company realize that the product has to have features needed by real users, not the sys admin who only sends out a few text messages a day.

    16. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by alen · · Score: 2

      Is write caching turned off on your SCSI adapter? I've seen a database corruption on Exchange, but it was easily fixed running isinteg utility.

    17. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1
      > Yeah, I suppose that Access databases are Jet databases doesn't matter.

      Correct. A Chevy is a Chevy, but a Chevette is not a Corvette. Jet is just the name for a database technology, but there are many distinctly different Jet engines. Access is one. ESE (what Exchange and Active Directory use) is another. They are totally different.

      Tough to address your myriad problems in the present, since it's clear you're only talking about Exchange 5.5. E2k has been out for well over a year and doesn't: have an "ims", crash the store on malformatted messages, corrupt the store on malformatted messages, have slow mail delivery via IMAP or otherwise, OR default configure for open relay.

      The corruption of mail store you mentioned on improper shutdown is iffy at best, since it does a transactional log replay when it comes back up. Maybe you have hardware problems that prevented the proper use of the transaction logs (ie - write caching, etc?)

      I propose that if a company has 35,000 users -- as in the 300 server example -- their layout is probably this: a small number of powerful servers at a "headquarters" type of location, with the rest spread throughout the world. The vast majority of the executives will be located at the headquarters, and -- seeing that this example is a government agency -- no doubt will number more than 1200. If you don't think these users send 1mb attachments to an "all executives" sort of distribution list, you clearly don't work in a mail-ops job.

      Poof. Instant time and space savings, even if spread across 20-30 servers.

    18. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      it's clear you're only talking about Exchange 5.5.

      Yes.

      E2k has been out for well over a year and doesn't

      The next version is always the one that works with MSFT stuff, isn't it?

      The corruption of mail store you mentioned on improper shutdown is iffy at best

      SCSI RAID system. No faults. No other files lost/corrupted/etc. System on UPS. No improper shutdowns of system that I know of.

      Poof. Instant time and space savings, even if spread across 20-30 servers

      Yes, this is the advantage of using a database to store messages. However, sendmail will not send a single message 30 separate times to 30 recipients at a remote sever; it sends it once. So the time savings are still there. On the remote system, the single messages gets exploded into X number of files, where X=number of local recipients. This is a downside of using separate files for each mailbox. So, no space savings.

      I suppose it would be possible to have procmail strip attachments into files, and have an imapd re-assemble the messages when requested. Or, I could use Cyrus.

      It has a unified message store, which is a blessing and a curse. Blessing for efficiency purposes, curse for recovery and migration purposes.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    19. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      This is not true for all *nix-based email systems. Qmail can be configured with a bulletin system that just creates a symbolic link to a message from every mailbox. And as far as I know, symbolic links didn't even exist in wintendo world till w2k.

      Having one huge file to store all email is a piss-poor design. The problem is inherent, and well-known. Corrupted Exchange databases are a frequent MCSE nightmare.

    20. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Which M$ couldn't design themselves, and bought it from Sybase.

    21. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Can you give me a pointer to QMail's bulletin system? How does it interact with IMAP?

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    22. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Curse for reliability purposes too. Corrupt one file, means corrupt everyone's email. Exchange is an administrator's nightmare.

      Store each message in its own file, on a good file system with better software if you want reliability. Qmail or Postfix or Curier and good *nix would do great. Also there's the qmail-ldap patch, which works great for centrallized administration and clustering.

    23. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      The IMAP server of choice for Qmail is Courier-IMAP (Maildirs, LDAP authentication, blah blah).
      www.courier-mta.org

      The bulletin program is here: www.coker.com.au/maildir-bulletin/

    24. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Half-a-gig of RAM for 140 Users? My 16 MB BSD box can do multitudes better. Piss poor!

    25. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by jtosburn · · Score: 1

      I can't let this pass:

      >>I've supported it for a government agency with 35,000 employees and 300 Exchange servers. It scales very well.

      35000 / 300 = 116.67 users per server

      Even if half of those servers are there for redundancy, 235 users is NOT scaling well. I wouldn't expect the tens of thousands of users per server that a unix email only solution can provide, but this kind of ratio is just pathetic.

    26. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1

      And then totally rewrote it, like, 5 years ago.

    27. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Wrong. MS SQL 6.5 is a ported version of Open Server. 7.0 just changed TDS protocol. 7.0 is not a 5-year old product. The bulk of the code is still Sybase. It's Sybase design and Sybase code, not MS.

    28. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1
      ME: E2k has been out for well over a year and doesn't

      YOU: The next version is always the one that works with MSFT stuff, isn't it?

      Perhaps you define "next" differently than I do... It's here. It's been here. Since August of 2000. It's not the "next" version. It's a total rearchitecture of most components, so your various problems with 5.5 simply don't apply on E2k.

      > However, sendmail will not send a single message 30 separate times

      Not the time savings I was talking about. I mean the time it takes to update 1200 separate mail-files with 1200 separate 1mb files. Exchange writes it to disk once (and fast into the database) for all 1200 users.

    29. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1
      As I understand it, 4.x (1995ish) was the first and last "sybase" derived SQL Server. 6.5 (1996ish) was largely rewritten based on roughly the same specs. 7.0 (1998ish?) was a huge update that added lots of enterprise features. 2000 (Mid-2000) is so far from "sybase" it makes my head spin.

      But I'm sure you'll correct me if this analysis is wrong.

    30. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1
      > The problem is inherent, and well-known

      Tell that to Oracle. They're big on monolithic database objects. They seem to think putting their entire enterprise mail organization in one cluster (and in essentially one huge database file) is a good idea.

      Of course, they'll spread it across a number of physical and logical databases to ensure recovery SLAs, but then again... you can do that in Exchange 2000 too.

    31. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by 1010011010 · · Score: 2

      Not the time savings I was talking about. I mean the time it takes to update 1200 separate mail-files with 1200 separate 1mb files. Exchange writes it to disk once (and fast into the database) for all 1200 users.

      This can apparently be done with Qmail and plain old files as well.

      --
      Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
    32. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Half-a-gig of RAM for 140 Users? My 16 MB BSD box can do multitudes better. Piss poor!

      You have a groupware-aware address book, email, scheduling, project management server that runs on a 16 MB BSD box?! Tell us more!

    33. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      I am sure the core is still Sybase. You can talk to MSSQL if you have Sybase or FreeTDS libraries.

    34. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by overturf · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a compatibility layer...?

    35. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure Exchange is great....if you don't mind shutting down your mail system everytime a new ActiveX worm, or trojan horse comes along. I am a Lotus Notes Admin. And for my money Notes is the way to go for X86 platform. Oh, and Notes does have most of the features mentioned. Includiing "Soft Deletions", yadda, yadda, yadda. Besides integrating a great database, and knowledge management tool right into the same client. I'll take IBM/Notes anyday, thank you.

    36. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      No, TDS is tabular data stream protocol. M$ dumbed it down, and gave it a new version number in 7.0. You can still talk from *nix using FreeTDS libraries which is what we're doing.

    37. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 2

      But, to be fair, I think the reason those Exchange servers only handle a fraction of the workload is that they are really being asked to do a lot more work behind the scenes

      True that Exchange versus Sendmail is radically unfair. But if you want Apples To Apples, Exchange is significantly less scalable than Lotus Notes or Novell Groupwise. Significantly Less users per server, less mail moved per hour, etc etc.

      Now, I'm not saying that scalability concerns outweigh the pretty client. They probably don't.

      But, Fact: Exchange is just not built for speed -- Look at the architecture diagram! There's about 2000 little boxes on there as old early 90s X.400 system was adapted for modern usage. It's an overly complex bloatpile that works only because MS has massive resources to make it work.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    38. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TDS is ancillary to the core product. MS supports compatibility with your FreeTDS drivers for the same reason that it supports compatibility with lots of other older drivers, although you have reduced functionality. RTFM, please.

      Rather than throwing around FUD, look at the database engine. It might not have been a "total rewrite", but the end result is that MS SQL 2000 is a *significantly* better product that Sybase ASE 12 in almost every respect except portability.

    39. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by trippd6 · · Score: 1

      You're mentally ill.

      A dumbed down SQL engine? It is JET aka Access. Thats not a dumbed down SQL engine. Thats a flat file database. If you get corruption, your in trouble. I should know, I spent 3 days straight (No sleep) on the phone with microsoft support, trying to get it cleaned up. What we had to do is export every mail box to a PST file, and reimport them to a brand new database. We lost all permisions, and all server based rules. Luckly, microsoft has a utility to export each mailbox, for just an occassion.

      It scales well only accross many servers. Even then, its a bitch.

      The only way to support large installations is to have many dedicated support people...

      -Tripp

    40. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by shyster · · Score: 2
      That used to be true...to an extent. Back in 1989, Ashton-Tate/MS SQL Server 1.0 was released for OS/2, which was a port of Sybase's Dataserver for UNIX. For the first versions, MS did the client side work, but Sybase was totally responsible for the engine.

      MS took a more active role in the development after that, however. By 1991, MS and Sybase were both working on the engine and core features of SQL Server. MS then produced it's own version of SQL Server for NT in 93. This was a major rewrite, though feature-compatible with earlier Sybase/MS versions. In 94, MS and Sybase parted ways, and traded code.

      95 saw MS-SQL Server 6.0, the 1st solely produced MS SQL Server (though, of course, Sybase's code was still in there). However, SQL Server 7.0's engine was almost totally rewritten by MS, and the current SQL Server 2000 is based on that engine. A quick history, with MS spin of course, can be found at MSDN. I know it's MS's PR, but the major events coincide with the known history of the product. Just ignore the marketing hyperbole.

    41. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by VP · · Score: 1

      I don't see what is so special about these features (and I use Exchange at work). All of it can be built from existing pieces of software, and the usability features can be preformed automatically just the same... In addition you probably won't be limitted to 117 users/server (35,000 users on 300 servers is not scalable - it is government waste).

    42. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why most Exchange sites have such problems with single mailbox backup and recovery. There's a long list of other mail systems that use one mail file per user. Domino is probably most notable there as it even allows you to create physically disconnected clusters to fail over to each other (which, if I remember my CSci classes, is what "hot site" disaster recovery planning is all about).

    43. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why Microsoft is moving Exchange to SQL server for the next version, right? 'Cause MSDE is such a great architecture?

    44. Re:The Chicken and the Egg by dmelomed · · Score: 1

      Bah, we're not even using 2000. We're still with 7.0.

  15. a little late... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dang, I submitted this months ago and it was ignored...guess Im just not special

  16. Communigate Pro vs OpenMail by Force9 · · Score: 1

    What Exchangish can OpenMail do that Stalker's CommuniGate Pro can't?

    --
    Mac OS: gravy...
    1. Re:Communigate Pro vs OpenMail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sync the users Outlook Calendars?

      Megabyte

  17. Sylpheed by Krimsen · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Don't forget there's another reader available that hopes to be a replacement for Outlook also.

    1. Re:Sylpheed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OpenMail is a server, not another reader.

    2. Re:Sylpheed by Krimsen · · Score: 1

      Whoops... Well, feed me garlic and call me stinky... boy, is my face red.

  18. Lotus Notes/Domino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notes/Domino runs on a variety of unix servers. It is a very robust and stable platform. The Notes client runs on just about every commercial operating system in use today. I have never encountered a Notes exploited virus during my professional career. For those who want to look at a good well-documented and supported email platform (among other things), make sure to check Lotus Notes/Domino.

    1. Re:Lotus Notes/Domino by christooley · · Score: 1

      I've had some of the better Outlook virii use the Notes address book, but only if specific versions of Outlook components were installed on the machine, even if they weren't used. I'm not certain how this technically was performed but it's still possible.

    2. Re:Lotus Notes/Domino by foobar104 · · Score: 2

      It's "viruses," goddammit. Not "virii."

    3. Re:Lotus Notes/Domino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This only works if the user has MAPI installed (the user is using Outlook.) If I had my way any user that installed outlook on their PC would be fired.

  19. Hi Hemos, you fucking moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe you didn't notice, but that link you gave had nothing to do with any Outlook vulnerability.

  20. Know better than what? by gazbo · · Score: 3, Insightful
    despite that people should know better.
    ...than to link to a story about an html rendering vulnerability that has been fixed?

    Actually, that link does serve some purpose - the entire tone of the article is very amusing given that the vulnerability was fixed 2 days later, and is worth re-reading with that in mind to see the sort of crap and guesswork people will write.
  21. how about this instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cyrus-imap (w/sasl), postfix, and openldap? Does everything openmail does. To replace exchange, all you really need is public calendars/meeting scheduling and server based reminders.
    It's free, too.

    1. Re:how about this instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Cyrus-imap (w/sasl), postfix, and openldap? Does everything openmail does. To replace exchange, all you really need is public calendars/meeting scheduling and server based reminders. It's free, too.

      NOPE - doesn't fully handle Outlook clients and other MAPI stuff among other things. Nor does it SCALE ...

    2. Re:how about this instead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you don't know what you're talking about. I concede the lack of MAPI compliant CLIENT plugins. As for the inability of the server to SCALE, you are merely wrong. The Cyrus server handles both vertical and horizontal scaling (horizontal, via murder). It doesn't handle failover clustering, at an application level, but exchange doesn't do that well either. And for the vast majority of business use, it's more than adequate. I'm assuming you don't intend to call postfix non-scalable. That would just be stupid.

  22. Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If Evolution were available for Winders, it would solve many problems. It has an interface familiar to those used to outlook and would be accepted easier then most other clients. Now to give it 100% of Outlook Functions.....

    Megbayte

  23. What about Lotus Bloats? by xtremex · · Score: 1

    Lotus Notes/Domino server runs on Linux as well as UNIX (especially AIX) and Windows, and besides the fact that it's a resource hog, I happen to think that Lotus Notes is pretty nifty. Although our nots admin won't say that :)

    --
    If you're not a Liberal in your 20's, then you have no heart.If you're still a Liberal in your 30's you have no brain.
    1. Re:What about Lotus Bloats? by Rassalon · · Score: 1

      Well, it is a bit bloated 'cause it can do so much. It's rather like that big fat Swiss Army knife weighing down your pocket.

      If all you need is ascii email, well, it's overkill; but, should you wish to build collabortive apps that run in browsers and in the Notes client, use group scheduling, email with lots of code embedded in the mail memos, integrate with just about every RDBMS, then Notes/Domino will do the trick.

  24. Calendar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shared calendaring is *the* reason that so many corporate sites adopt Outlook/Exchange.

    In my experience this is the the feature that drives a wedge between the technical folks and the non-technical folks in technology companies: as a rule, the technical folks have relatively sparse calendars, because most of their schedule involves individual work, while for non-technical folks much of their schedule involves collaborative work.

    For management the situation is even more dire: most - if not all - of their schedule involves meetings, often involving dozens of people. The higher you go, the more constrained the schedule becomes, and the more legwork required to maintain it.

    Hell, I could use a decent calendaring app to arrange poker games with my buds: we ping e-mail back & forth for days sometimes trying to find a decent evening that works for all of us. It doesn't help that our calendars are sprikled all over the place (Palms, Yahoo, Exchange, paper and brain cells).

    Frankly, I think that this is *the* next killer app (after they synch up AOL IM/MSN IM/Yahoo IM/iMode/GSM SMS). I'm betting on the telcos, and I further bet Japan or Europe will lead - as usual. (Btw, did you know that OpenMail was/is developed in Britain?)

    1. Re:Calendar by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Very good point. We were forced (by a parent company) to switch off of Exchange/Outlook to a product that doesn't yet have calendaring and senior management in our company almost revolted. We ended up with a compromise to keep the calendar part of Exchange running until the other products calendar app is ready. Just yesterday I had to set up a meeting with two VP's. Do you think I actually talked to them? Of course not. They don't know their own calendar. You have to talk to their assistants.

    2. Re:Calendar by alen · · Score: 2

      A networking group in my clec used to keep a calendar in an MDB database. Once they screwed it up and I had to restore from back up tape. I made them a calendar on our exchange server, they love it and I haven't heard from them in weeks.

    3. Re:Calendar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you can share calanders without having an exchange server, however outlook does the update with many many many little files being sent to the other shares as updates (so if they screw up their outllok and have to restore a pst file from a backup - it is a bit of a PITA, but not impossible).
      I've never had to use exchange as a server, so I don't know if it is instant or not (I would assume it would be).

  25. Shared Calendars by Jack+Hughes · · Score: 1
    The only thing that exchange does (that you might want ;-) that open source products don't are shared calendars.

    Of course, the way exchange does it is proprietary - using nasty hard to reverse engineer MS-DCE functions.

    There is a project to reverse engineer this though: http://sourceforge.net/projects/osexchange.

    Better would be an open standard for Calendar Access.

    And there is one - CAP - it is a draft with no reference implementations, however (either a calendary or a server).

    However the reefknot project is attempting to build libraries for CAP among other things.

    Of course, a lot of development is needed. The dream should be a standards based server which supports CAP - but also offers MS Exchange emulation for "legacy" clients.....

  26. Groupware! by Sighm · · Score: 1

    It is funny to see that people want their mail agent to become a multi-functional application that has sharing capabilities like calendars, todo's, whatever.

    However, the name for those applications isn't a mail programma! Instead we like to call them groupware.

    M$ Exchange is a groupware application, so is OpenMail. I'm not using either on of them, instead I choose to install MoreGroupWare to provide all those features to me. But, Sylpheed, on the other hand, is just a (handy) mail agent/news reader.

    Alas, my 0.02 Eurocents...

    --
    --------
  27. Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by EricLivingston · · Score: 5, Interesting
    We have a small company of about 8 people and while our Web site is BSD and our time tracking system is Linux, I've recently had to bring up a Win2k Server box with Exchange 2000 for the SOLE purpose of being able to do group calendaring - that is, the ability to:

    • Create a new meeting
    • Bring up a list of employees and check their schedule availability
    • Schedule the meeting for an open slot on everyone's calendar
    • Invite all the participants through an email
    • Have those invitees respond to the mail by accepting or declining the meeting
    • Have their responses automatically tallied by the server, allowing me to log in and check on the invite status at any time
    • Move and/or cancel the meeting, with automatic update emails sent to all participants which will update their own calendars at the push of a button

    I researched for days looking for a Linux/BSD based Open-source solution for this functionality, and I didn't find anything even remotely close. I tried to get OpenMail, but HP has shut down the download area so you can't get it anymore. Products like Evolution are slick and have a good email interface, but are single-user only calendaring systems, with no (automated) group coordination at all. Frankly, I find this type of functionality critical in a company of even 8 employees: I just don't see how companies can get along without some kind of group calendaring solution.

    This is definately a major gap in the overall functionality of Open Source software in general, which is one reason why Exchange/HP OpenMail/Lotus Notes will continue to thrive.

    --
    Please Rate my comment (and help support Fre
    1. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by ch-chuck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can share a calendar w/o Exchange server - just did it. All that the Outlook clients need to do is to be able to send email to each other. Granted it may take up to 20 minutes to update but it can work w/o the server. It can share folders with the Msft mail 3 'postoffice' too (bunch of passive directories on a server).

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    2. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Check out IPlanet Calendar Server.
      It will do everything on your list, with an Outlook client, and its only about $50 per user. We had a demand for a shared calendar, and since we've started out down the Solaris/Apache/Sendmail path, (which has proven to be a very good thing given all of the Microsoft security problems) I wasnt going to put Exchange in.. It works quite well.

    3. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by __aanekd3853 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Frankly, I find this type of functionality critical in a company of even 8 employees: I just don't see how companies can get along without some kind of group calendaring solution.

      Frankly, I find the ability to sync my calendar with my iPAQ and cell phone even more critical. I can live with a simple email scheduling an appointment and inserting it into my calendar manually. I do want to have my calendar with me when I am away from my office though.

      Is there reliable syncing s/w for iPAQs and Nokia phones that do not require Windows on the desktop?

    4. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by Arricc · · Score: 1

      www.phpgroupware.org?

    5. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      Is there reliable syncing s/w for iPAQs

      PocketMac, a spin off of Information Appliance Associates, is making a sync product for Macs and PocketPC devices. They are releasing a carbon application, so it will work with both 9 and X. It doesn't require "Windows on the desktop" but I don't expect it was exactly what you were looking for ;)

      With this product, it looks like it will be possible to sync one's email on a Mac with a PocketPC device sooner than one can do the same on a Palm. So I know which PDA platform just jumped up in my list.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    6. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by iceT · · Score: 2


      Very easy. Steltor.

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
    7. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've recently had to bring up a Win2k Server box with Exchange 2000 for the SOLE purpose of being able to do group calendaring - that is, the ability to:

      [snip, list of features]


      MeetingMaker does all that and more, at a lower price. It scales better, and is severely cross-platform: clients for Just About Everything (including native Java applets), live web-publishing, PDA-syncing, etc. etc.



      Nobody has to use Exchange. Those that do, condemn themselves to solitary Windows confinement, and pay dearly. Initially, as well as continously after first investments.

    8. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check this site for all different calendar managers:

      http://web.mit.edu/cal/product-list.html

    9. Re:Killer Feature = Shared Calendaring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just surprised you didn't go for linux on Domino rather than buy another box, and exchange. Might have saved yourself some money. Have you seen Inotes (access to notes over the web or "real-time" web access to outlook. Dead good). Oh you'll also get the proper workflow and proper doc sharing collaboration that exchange folks have been waiting for soo long.

  28. Pah. by King+Of+Chat · · Score: 2

    OK, the UI for 4.x was pretty awful. 5 is a lot better - although there are some odd things in there. If it confuses you because you're only used to Outlook, well, too bad.

    We use Notes throughout for a lot more than just mail/calendar and we don't get many problems at all. As well as support for all that stuff mentioned above, there's also stuff like S/MIME - with the ability to use the NAB as an LDAP server for picking up public keys etc.

    Good administrators can keep it running flawlessly (ours don't do that badly either). We've never had an e-mail virus problem - if you install/configure MAPI to use Notes, then yes, that could be a problem, but why on earth would anyone want to do that?

    --
    This sig made only from recycled ASCII
    1. Re:Pah. by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      No, it's not because I'm used to using outlook. It's because they haven't taken the time to design a good UI. They haven't done testing to get feedback. It may be a solid product, but having a non-intuitive interface is killer.

      Anyone who uses Legato for backups knows exactly what I mean. It's a solid backup system, seems to work well, but god it's a horrendous interface. I claw my eyes out whenever I know I have to go and restore something or re-index some tapes. If all the Notes developers would head on out to a local community college and take a class or two on Human Computer Interaction, then they might have a product that fits with the intuitive nature that we all possess and human beings.

    2. Re:Pah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      5 is better ?! What planet are you on?!

      Off the top of my head:

      • It can't handle daylight saving time. So don't live in UK or Ireland.
      • If it crashes (and it does), it won't start again until you log out and back in again. Yes, you can get around that by killing a process called "nhldaemon", but do you want to start advising 10k users to kill processes when stuff crashes? Nope.
      • All the really annoying UI elements of 4.x are still there: the password logon, the broken search, and the fact that it takes 2 minutes to archive one fricking message
      In summary: Notes has one of the most broken clients I've ever had the misfortune to encounter. Go back to paper before you consider using it.
    3. Re:Pah. by Wntrmute · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyone who uses Legato for backups knows exactly what I mean.

      One day the Legato interface will be the death of me, I just know it. God forbid they actually perform some usability testing.

    4. Re:Pah. by Cesaro · · Score: 1

      Hehehehe.... I'm glad you're with me on this one. hehehe. Quite possibly the worst interface one could come up with if one was attempting to make the worst interface possible.

    5. Re:Pah. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. What kind of a problem are you having with daylight savings? I've never really had too much time with daylight savings, aside from the OS not switching when it was supposed to.

      2. Not sure which version you have, but I have been a administrator and developer since version 2.0 and crashing has never been a real problem. It does happen, but not very often. There are programs (a free one from a lotus employee which is available on notes.net and several commercial programs) to kill the processes that are still running.

      3. There is no doubt that the UI could use some improvement, but it does work well once you get used to it. I don't see what the big deal is with the password login. If you don't like it, then set up the users on NT/2000 and have them login to notes automatically (they will not see a login prompt.)

      I also don't see what the problem is with the search. The search engine in Notes is one of the best features, and it works great.

      Something is screwed on your system if it takes 2 minutes to archive one message.

  29. overheard in a medevil server farm.... by Gehenna_Gehenna · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bill G.: Bring out yer dead!



    HP:'Ere you go...



    Open Mail:I'm not dead yet



    HP:What do yer mean, yer ready to go at any time!



    Open Mail: I'm getting better!



    Bill G.: I can't take thi$, it'$ not GUI reliant nor i$ it a real threat to my monopoly!



    Open Mail: I feel happy! I feel fine!



    [THUD]



    HP: Thanks a lot!



    Users: Do you see them oppressin' me?



    (wink wink nudge nudge know what I mean)

    --

  30. No it isn't! by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 2
    "...OpenMail is the *only* e-mail platform out there, besides Exchange that will support a whole slew of Microsoft Outlook features..."



    Please let me plug two products for a moment. The first is MailOne (descended from DEC's MailWORKS). Except for the Calendar/Groupware functions, it also supports Exchange/Outlook clients (including address book) as well as POP and IMAP (plus a command line and Motif client). Runs on Linux, AIX and Tru64.



    The second is Direct21, an email migration tool. If you are trying to get off of OpenMail (or on, I think) this tool will do that quickly and easily.



    Both can be found through the website.

    --
    324006
    1. Re:No it isn't! by Linux_ho · · Score: 2

      Except for the Calendar/Groupware functions...
      Right, well, that's just it. The calendar/groupware functions are really what we're talking about. I put together a free mail server using Sendmail, OpenLDAP, Cyrus POP3/IMAP, IMP webmail, and I contributed to a web-based user management interface for Cyrus/OpenLDAP called Websieve, available on SourceForge.

      The system as a whole does everything Exchange does, including user-controlled server-side mail filtering (Does Exchange do that?), everything except calendar/groupware.

      Right now I'm hoping I can get some open-source groupware program to fill the gap, but I haven't been able to find anything yet that will do iCal and integrate with my users' Palm devices.
      --
      include $sig;
      1;
  31. Lotus Notes? by doppleganger871 · · Score: 1

    What about Lotus Notes? The domino server we run here seems very stable (especially running on our AS/400), and supports loads of features.

    The client could use a little refinement in some areas, but overall, it's pretty good.

  32. What about Notes? by afx · · Score: 1

    Hmm, I thought Notes does all those things and more...
    Ok, its another proprietory beast, but they all are.

    --
    Life is too short for crappy pictures.
  33. Cost cutting from the ground up by truthsearch · · Score: 2

    I couldn't agree more. I've been spending all of my free time putting together documents and a plan to get my company to switch to Linux workstations and Linux/*BSD servers. It's a major multi-national corporation, and if we slowly migrate (successfully), I guarantee it'll be documented in at least a few industry publications.

    My point being that if IT managers and developers see articles of success, cost cutting, and other improvements, their interest peaks. Doesn't matter what platform or language it's about. All you need to do is raise their interest so maybe others will try the same, and once it's visible enough, others will come into the market to compete with software like this.

    I sure hope my company will look beyond Microsoft... and I'm going to do everything in my power to make management aware of their options.

  34. Ah - there's always that 'except' catch by Clansman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    >Except for the Calendar/Groupware functions

    And therein lies the rub - and this goes for all the others above who are plugging imap as the solution.

    The users say they /need/ the shared calendar. They have nokia 9110's / wince devices etc and they want it all to synch with outlook. So you can argue with them until you are blue in the face that they won't all use the calendar and this and that but in the end it only takes a few dedicated users on a user group plus one manager to crack and hey ho you need to be evaluating notes and the insight/trade server from bynari otherwise you'll have exchange by the end of the month :-)

  35. Hee. by M-2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I work for a Very Large Organization that uses Openmail in parts of itself, and Exchange in others. When HP announced they were knifing Openmail, this gave some people the excuse to start planning the switchover.

    So, now it's not being knifed. I made sure to get this information to my boss, who is going to pass it on to other people today, to read, review, and spit bile over, because now the reason for their pet project going through is negated. And it means we're not going over to Exchange, which is, pretty much, a good thing overall, even if having two different email systems between the parts of the corporation that merged together is a Really Not Very Good Thing.

    I love the sound of an entire Fortune 10 corporation's IT management and planning group having a collective stroke, especially when I gave the information that causes the stroke. It really makes my mornings worth it some days.

    1. Re:Hee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Openmail is a piece of trash. I work at a telecomm that is 'between' openmail and exchange and I gotta tell you - the sooner openmail dies, the better off everyone will be.

    2. Re:Hee. by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 1

      I'd bet large amounts of money (if I had it :-) that your managers dismiss this news and go ahead with the project anyway. That's politics. Nobody likes to lose budget dollars that have already been approved.

      --
      It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
    3. Re:Hee. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it's a typical MIS situation, the manifest obviousness of OpenMail's suckiness is clear to everyone except the group of HP Lovers/MS haters in MIS who are camped around the server. They are the political problem, not the people working on the replacement.

      OpenMail will Live On! It's being maintained by some Japanese company that makes Microwave Ovens!

      Do you seriously think this will affect OpenMail's destiny? It's just as doomed as it was last year, although legacy sites have a couple more years to get their migration act together.

  36. Open mail is not the *ONLY* option by librarygeek · · Score: 1

    I feel it necessary to point out that OpenMail is definitely NOT the *only* platform to support a whole slew of outlook features. Novell's Groupwise 6 product supports despite what MS may want it's clients to believe. In addition to the technical features it is a LOT cheaper than Exchange. For those people who seem to buy into the MS line that Novell is old and outdated, I must laugh at them. Our Netware servers run rings around our NT boxes in terms of uptime and speed. Netware also now runs Apache, and I have heard that they are currently hard at work at porting PHP as well.

    1. Re:Open mail is not the *ONLY* option by killmenow · · Score: 1

      I used to work at a GroupWise (5.5) shop. It was actually a pretty nice product. We had a whole integrated voice-mail, e-mail, fax-mail ("universal inbox") solution in place. It was pretty cool to click on my voice-mails in GroupWise and listen to them on my PC...and even respond to them. I know this is a feature that can be added on to any number of these products via third-parties, but GroupWise was the only one I've ever used where we did it.

    2. Re:Open mail is not the *ONLY* option by troutdog · · Score: 1

      GroupWise 5.5 rocks, why any one would use the virus prone outlook is beyond me. As an administator of a law firm I ran 450 users on one old P200 server. Admin was a snap. This is a set it and forget it product. Not to mention that it has a great DMS.

  37. OK - ish by King+Of+Chat · · Score: 2

    I have a suspicion that the quirky UI is partly a consequence of the cross-platform nature of the product. It looks like it's coded in C/C++ using a cross-platform library of some sort. Since you can replace the entire UI with something custom-written in Java (and I've known people who've done this) then if people find it that offensive then they can do something about it.

    The core product is pretty good though. We have a few hundred in-house developed databases which do everything from discussion to complex workflow. We don't have many problems. Once you've got it set up, being able to pick a bunch of people and a room for a meeting, then hitting "find free time" (although, god knows, this is beyond most project managers) is cool. Oh, and our web stuff runs on it as well.

    In response to the AC reply, you can fix the daylight saving. I'll admit we did have a problem with the fact that the states and the UK didn't change at the same time, but that's sorted now.

    --
    This sig made only from recycled ASCII
    1. Re:OK - ish by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      I have a suspicion that the quirky UI is partly a consequence of the cross-platform nature of the product

      Correct. Notes actually predates Windows 3.0 and is from back when nobdody knew who would win: OS/2 PM or Macintosh. Consequentally, it's got some alien widgets.

      Part of the problem too is that Lotus developers themselves would produce ugly apps with purple text on yellow backgrounds and terrible usability, and the user community copied them. Much of what the "UI Hall of Shame" is ragging on is not the core product but some misguided corporate developer's work. (Their counterargument is that the core product should prevent such stupidity.)

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    2. Re:OK - ish by Rassalon · · Score: 1

      Well, Notes6 (aka RNext) will not have to deal with the OS/2 PM, as I am told. So, the UI folks at Lotus/Iris Associates are cleaning up a lot of those old hangers on.

      Also, rumor has it that the Powers That Be at IBM won't ship RNext 'til it is actually finished, unlike R5 which snuck out the door a bit to soon.

  38. [OT] HTML entities by gazbo · · Score: 1

    the < symbol can be written as <
    Use your favorite html book to find some more goodies.

  39. kick MS out of the server room by eramm · · Score: 1

    While there are plenty of Open Source programs that do what Exchange does, Exchanges wraps them up into one central program and for me that's a feature.

    I think that if you want to kick MS out of the server room, than a Open Source "Exchange Killer" needs to be developed. Until that time it may be worth it for the community to promote OpenMail.

    eramm

    1. Re:kick MS out of the server room by tweek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Please refrain from speaking about things when you have no idea what you're talking about.

      To all the uninformed and never-worked-in-corporate-it-and-no-helpdesk-doesn 't-count people saying that all of this could be done with opensource products, it can't right now.

      Our company researched a migration from Exchange to a linux-based product and simply could not do it. Two key features available in exchange are NOT available in opensource tools: shared calendering and shared contacts. Sure you can hack something together with ldap to handle the shared contacts but the outlook client won't support it. Everything else I looked into from Bynari et. al. required alot of the work to be done from a web interface. Forget the shared calendaring. It didn't take advantage of the normal outlook mechanism and didn't work quite right. Don't give me any shit about using something other than outlook either. When your company runs Office, outlook is a part of it. Why go and shell out more money for another mail client? Besides, no other mail clients support shared calendaring. You may not need it at home but business damn sure love it and frankly so do I.

      Maybe iCal will be finally standardized and integrated into outlook but until that time, companies that already use Office, will use outlook because it's included and thus will want to use the features of it.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    2. Re:kick MS out of the server room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Please refrain from speaking about things when you have no idea what you're talking about.

      Take a look at Caldera's Volution Messaging Server

      It isn't entirely open-source, but it's major components are.

  40. HP fears M$ more than it loves OpenMail by eramm · · Score: 1
    This article in LinuxWorld was published soon after HP announced that they were discontinuing OpenMail.

    The premise of the author is that "HP refused to market OpenMail energetically as an Exchange replacement because it was more interested in protecting its relationship with Microsoft"

    1. Re:HP fears M$ more than it loves OpenMail by killmenow · · Score: 1

      This is fairly common knowledge. HP had at one time been working on an NT port of OpenMail but MS threatened them and face it, HP makes more money off of its hardware (with MS licenses pre-installed) than it does off OpenMail...hence, thanks to Microsoft's heavy-handed tactics, OpenMail never became a viable competitor to Exchange.

    2. Re:HP fears M$ more than it loves OpenMail by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      Well, honestly, I think HP and OpenMail was much like IBM and OS/2. They never really tried to make the product superior, because deep down, the majority of people working for them didn't really believe in it to start with.

      We purchased Manage-X and Openview from HP about a year and a half ago, and a couple of HP reps came out to our site to train us on the products, take us out to dinner, etc. I brought up OpenMail at that time, because their latest release had just come out and I was playing with it on a Linux server. Their immediate reaction was "Ugh... OpenMail? That's a terrible product."

      I tried to probe them for reasons why they disliked it, but I guess they realized they shouldn't talk so badly about one of their own software packages. They just made comments like "Well, I haven't actually used the very latest version, but in the past it just wasn't very user-friendly."

  41. +2000 for the parent, insightful! by FreeUser · · Score: 2

    I'll be the first to admit that Exchange Server and Outlook are one killer combination. However like I have stated several times over the years, I'll be god-damned if I'm going to lock up my company's data like that. The data store is proprietary. The access tools are proprietary. Maybe I'm getting old and crochety but I've been bit before (too many times in fact) to just let it go.

    You are absolutely, 100% correct. This is our company's policy as well, both for development products and (most importantly) data: it cannot require a proprietary product that would, under any circumstances, leave us beholden to any vendor, no matter how benevolent. Let's face it, the nicest, most well meaning vendor in the world can, through no fault of their own, be run out of business. Indeed, likely by a much less benevolent vendor who would just love to keep your data hostage *cough*Microsoft*cough*.

    On a personal level I was using Applix Word on GNU/Linux. A great, albeit proprietary, software suite for office applications and a wonderful word processor. Not as bloated as Microsoft Word, yet having many of the snazzier features that actually facilitate getting one's work done. I was using it extensively while working on a novel and screenplay I'm writing.

    I dumped it.

    Not because of any missing features, or price, or anythnig like that, but because, one day, it was reluctant to start. Turned out I'd clobbered a font it wanted when doing a dist-upgrade against debian-testing (the next apt-get fixed it, but th e whole event scared me). I had, for a few minutes, the horrifying feeling that weeks of work had just become as inaccessible to me as the surface of the moon.

    Once I got Applix running again I converted everything to HTML, then spent several days cleaning up the crappy HTML Applix generates, into a more readable and maintainable format. Not the handiest format for word processing around, but adequate and, most importantly, very accessible. I will never fear loosing my hard work again. What is more, now that I've finally gotten around to learning some emacs (something I've been procrastinating for years) I find I can work with HTML files as quickly and conviniently as I was the Applix stuff, within the self-imposed limitations that HTML implies.

    You are 100%, absolutely correct. Data is by far the most valuable asset on a computer (exceeding the value of the hardware and software combined in most cases), and storing it in anything other than an open, non-proprietary format is a recipe for disaster. It appears this is becoming aparent to industry already ... I suspect with a few more jerks of the costomer's chain by Microsoft this fact will become even more apparent to many more people and companies down the road, when years of corporate records and correspondence are at stake because of soemthing as asinine as a file format change, rather than merely a few tens of documents that are suddenly inconvinient for the secretary to access.

    --
    The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    1. Re:+2000 for the parent, insightful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ding Ding - give the man a cigar.
      Data is everything. Exchange is like putting your balls in a vice, smeared with viruses. prepare to be squeezed.

      Calendaring is neat, but do you really need it, when you know the lunchtimes or after the friday 4.30 one are available at a pinch? Or do you use the company mobile phone to sort out emergencies., and do huddles after /before meetings?

      Meetings are mostly unproductive for many, and once the recurrent regular meetings are penciled in, the added value is LOW. The brain , or the PA know better. One PA to manage appointments is probably CHEAPER too.

      Lets talk costs.
      Major telcos/carriers don't use it , because they know the costs.
      Zillions of small servers, all needing pampering and prodding/updating, plus licence costs for virus, intruder detection systems layered on top,. archiving .. training .. the list goes on.

      A composite solution pine, *mail, and just using outlook for calendaring, and project hook ins - what an idea. It also fixes a major security problem, encrypted or not, an open mail item, then you click calendar, which invokes sharings, active.. I believe this breaks a very important security principle. Also, and alternative email system, is worth it anyway -see the list of worms.

      Try getting a bookmaker to give 100:1 odds that there will be no new viruses or worms for MS. Repeat the offer for the team that nurses your exchange servers - no takers?

      Now ask yourself, what tools does MS give you LOSSLESS conversion. To their HTLM - not W3C is it?

      As long as everything fits on ONE exchange server, it is ok. Once you exceed this look elsewhere, because MS charges a huge premium for scalability.

  42. They replaced the corps of engineers at the local by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    base in OKC (Tinker AFB) b/c they could contract it out for less than 1/2 the cost and actually get something (anything) done. Government job is like jumbo shrimp. It just doesn't work!

  43. retrogrouch speaks up by ragnar · · Score: 2

    Personally I don't want to muck up my email with a bunch of unrelated things, like calendars. It probably appeals to the PHB sort, but I can't the use in this stuff. I like my email the good old way, plain text.

    --
    -- Solaris Central - http://w
    1. Re:retrogrouch speaks up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad you're not one of the ones who run large companies, the ones who get to make these kinds of decisions for *lots* of people.

      Anyone can do whatever they like when it's just themselves.

  44. Why companies use Exchange and nothing else by TBone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One word: Calendaring.

    As much crap as LookOut/Exchange does, there is no other piece of software that seamlessly integrates the groupware automated scheduling functionality that Exchange does. From a New Event window, I can create the event, add users from the Exchange domain, verify their schedules, move the event, confirm it, have a mail sent that shows up to each person with the information and 3 buttons (Accept, Decline, and Accept Conditionally). After I send the Email, I can then track who has opened the Email, who has replied, who is coming, and who isn't.

    Evolution is a nice client, but it's a client. All of that work is on the serverside.

    Notes is OK, but I need a bigger machien to run it on than I run my data warehouses on. And when it crashes (when, not if), it's gonna be seriously borked.

    This is why companies use Exchange/LookOut. Not because it's a great mail client, but because it integrates all of the possible messageing functions a business needs, and talks to additional software like Project to plot out Project Management information.

    OpenMail is the only other server-side enterprise messaging system out there that fulfills these needs. It's a decent program, it's not MS, it's significantly cheaper (if for no other reason then you only need 10% of the servers to run it on), and it runs on a more stable OS.

    --

    This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U

    1. Re:Why companies use Exchange and nothing else by Gollo · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Novell Groupwise had all this well before Outlook, and did it better in my opinion (I was using it in 1995, when Outlook was struggling with this functionality).

      It's all but dead now, though.

      Gollo.

    2. Re:Why companies use Exchange and nothing else by __aaakhl8499 · · Score: 1

      Check out Insight from Bynari http://www.bynari.com

      Any users lurking out there?

      Chancer

    3. Re:Why companies use Exchange and nothing else by iceT · · Score: 2

      Actually, the calendar client in Outlook/Exchange is a 90% client side function. The *ONLY* serverside component is the posting of your 'Free/Busy' data to a public folder that is then replicated to other Exchange servers...

      All other calendar services are client based, relying on a pre-determined message format that the client understands...

      The security model for Exchange extends down to the FOLDER LEVEL only. There is no item level security, so if you give someone read access to your calendar, then there is NOTHING stopping people from reading any item in that folder... Because the ITEM security is ALSO a client function...(don't trust that 'private' flag! Both Outlook98 Beta2 and Outlook 2000 (pre-SR1) had bugs that IGNORED that flag and allowed you to PRINT or VIEW the 'private items'..)

      Microsoft has done what Microsoft does best: CLIENT SOFTWARE. The calendaring system in Exchange is really an outlook-calendaring client with a tiny bit of server-side hooks for Free/Busy data.

      In a nut-shell, Exchange is Microsoft Mail on steroids, and that's about it.

      --
      -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
    4. Re:Why companies use Exchange and nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, Exchange crashes way more often than a properly installed and administered Notes/Domino system. Not to mention the virus threat. Secondly, You need to check you stats, because Notes/Domino is still number one in the world as far as installed clients. Thirdly, you don't need any bigger machine to run notes that you do an exchange server. And that machine will handle more users per server that exchange could ever dream of.

    5. Re:Why companies use Exchange and nothing else by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont know where your experience of Notes is from but we use Notes for email and applications and web and only take the servers down when we need to restart the NT Servers.

      Our mail servers have over 600 users on each one, they are rock solid on NT. At my last place they had Notes on AS400 and this is awsome.

      Most Notes problems are sue to administration errors, notes is more complex to admin because is is mail/appcserver/web server etc

  45. Just submit it again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It'll be back on the home page within the week.

  46. can anything /= outlook use the shared calendar? by zeugma-amp · · Score: 1

    What I'd be extremely interested in finding is a linux client that will let me use another email application other than Outlook that will interoperate with exchange server 'features' like the shared calendar and address books.

    It would make my life much easier.

    Does anyone know if there is such a beast?

    I use kmail at home, but would =love= to be able to get rid of the windows side of my dual-boot laptop.

    --
    This is an ex-parrot!
  47. What About Lotus? by ras_b · · Score: 1

    I don't know too much about these things, but isn't Lotus Notes (or is Domino the server) a serious competitor to Exchange? And I know Lotus runs on Unix & Linux. Isn't Lotus part of IBM, and most people have seen how much IBM is pushing Linux as a platform. Anyway, obviously I am asking these questions more than making a statement, but I know Lotus is pretty widely used, it runs on Unix, and has many Outlook features, so why is OpenMail "the only serious Unix-based competitor to Microsoft Exchange"?

    1. Re:What About Lotus? by gadders · · Score: 1

      Um... because Hemos is a dick and doesn't know much about commercial mail systems? Notes/Domino is way cool, does what Exchange does, works etc etc.

  48. Caldera has Volution Mail Server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Caldera has just released a product called Volution that is a drop-in replacement for Exchange. It's proprietary though.

  49. Openmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Openmail is dying, I mean how much can your trust it when even HP themselves who made the product are changing their internal mailsystems to Exchange.

    I've been running Openmail for a company with about 4000 people on the mailserver, they are going over to Exchange just because the simple fact that HP is doing it. And I know for a second fact that the two biggest ISP/Telecom operators in sweden and finland are going away from Openmail to Exchange.

    It will take hellova commersial campaigne and improvements to openmail to bring back the big companies. And since they already lost them where is the money to help improve the product, its going downwards for Openmail.

    Been a good time knowin ya :-)

  50. why not start over with new OpenMailish app? by linuxislandsucks · · Score: 1

    Sounds like we need to start over and have the OpenSource Community creat a new Mail App that does what MS Exchange does only better and more stable..

    I too, was looking at deploying OpenMail for a client but voice objections after reviewing HP's support record on this piece of software..

    Not to mention the errors and stability issues..

    --
    Don't Tread on OpenSource
    1. Re:why not start over with new OpenMailish app? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? More stable? More open? I've worked in several Fortune 50 companies. ALL of them used exchange. ALL of them. And to be honest, it went down just about as much as any sendmail,qmail,pop,imap configuration I've ever used. Exchange is there to stay and the odds of any large corporation scrapping their setup for some secondhand rippoff is so slim it doesn't even matter. Get over your M$ insecurities and get with the program. Use the right tool for the job, and for what Exchange is used for, it does it well.

    2. Re:why not start over with new OpenMailish app? by sjuels · · Score: 1

      Uhh I smell a new project coming up!

      Or yet another "Let's put our code, where our mouth is!" - lets get some ideas, get a group started, and start on the framework.

      Outlook is absolutely one of Microsoft's killer aps, and it is a good idea, but needs to be done right: No VTP (virus transfer protocol), build in security, separation between data and code etc.

      Maybe a PostgreSQL DB, qmail, with an XML protocol slapped on top of it. (Feel free to insert your favorite piece of free software that can do the job.)

      It is so obvious that it hurts, and it is so obvious that it will happen despite MS trying to patent the principle of sending mail over the internet.

      /Soren

      .sig(h!)

  51. Re:They replaced the corps of engineers at the loc by alen · · Score: 2

    USACE is contracting most of their IT work to a company called Syntegra. I think most of the WAN is now Syntegra. And they want to start moving the admins of the local sites to syntegra and away from US government employees. I heard the annual contract is something to the tune of $350 million.

  52. Is a Linux download available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great,

    Lets talk up OpenMail, but HP has taken down their free Linux evaluation. How the heck can I try it out? It's nice that HP redirects you to any OpenMail point of contact.

  53. And this sounds like the reason... by OSgod · · Score: 1

    that Andover.net is on the rocks -- the attitude that they should buy our product because they should know better.

    It's the right attitude for marketing as they aggressively sell their product and CONVINCE users that their product is really better. The wrong attitude for tech's.

  54. Too little, too late. by Observer · · Score: 1
    Place I work used "happymail" for years as its primary backbone. Used another package for calendaring. Then HP started emphasising integration with Windows clients and offloading non-core connector modules onto third party suppliers, and the calendaring integration (as far as I've heard) lagged behind: the overal impression was that HP was less than fully committed to the product. So Exchange got the nod for the future. And once that sort of decision gets taken high up in a large company, it's seldom turned round - amongst other reasons because some high-ups would have to admit they'd made a mistake. In fact, from their point of view this takeup by Samsung supports their decision: the original vendor is backing out of the product, why should they continue to depend on it?

    Another poster mentioned Dec's MailWorks and its descendant: there yoiu have another case of an excellent product (for its time) that sank because of lack of commitment by the vendor. (Well, you can say that about Digital in general near the end, but MailWorks was one of the earlier signs.)

    Sorry, folks, but at the level where OM was pitched, perceptions are very important.

  55. What about Bynari Insight Server? by hirschma · · Score: 1
    This is supposedly a "drop in replacement" for Exchange.

    Anyone here use it? Is it any good?

    1. Re:What about Bynari Insight Server? by miljus · · Score: 1

      Tried it. works. It's a combination of openldap+ sendmail+ ftp+ http+ configuration frontend. openldap: used for email address lookup on the clientside. ftp+http: used for freebusy sharing on outlook and Insight clients As you can see, you could set this up your self. But it is easier to buy the comlete set from Insight. The included frontend makes the initial installation easier I did it myself with qmail,openldap,proftpd,apache. The only special thing is the "freebusy" option, the serverside is easy to setup with apache and wu-ftpd. For the clientside you will have to get a licenses of the Insight client to share your calender (only the freebusy info) with outlook users. this option is simply not available on other linux clients as far as I know. Justin

  56. Re:Ho ho ho! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oooh, get her...

  57. Better than nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay people where is what I thin we need.
    1. an Open standard for shared calanders.
    2. a server to replace exchange that supports LDAP/IMAP/Open Calander(OCAP)? It should also support Microsofts interface so exchange will work with it.
    It could use MySQL, Postgres, or any other SQL server as a backend and offer a Cobra or RMI interface for addons. It should also have and https: interface for mail. I think it should be writen in java so it can run on anything. I am sure that the c++, python, and Ruby folks think differently :)
    3 An email client that can talk to the new cool server and nasty old exchange. It must do everything Outlook can do except scripting (it is just dumb and dangerious). It has to run on Windows/Macs/Unix.... Again I vote for Java but I am biased.
    Of course it has to support plug ins so it can be expanded all over the place and we can all make money writing custom apps that hook into it.
    Just a thought :)

  58. Dealing with Samsung by ppetrakis · · Score: 1

    Having worked for them before I know all too well
    how they view 'any' product when it comes to thing they ultimatley care about, Money. You guys want openmail to stick around? Start contacting Samsung on a reg basis. Get in contact with the project manager and the developers. TELL them exactly what you want i.e group calender. Offer to beta test new release and return quality bug reports and recommendations. Recommend openmail to your colleges. You see Samsung being a huge company that makes money in so many different ways. When they have a product X that may not have as high a revenue output as they had hoped for the next quarter (not year) they 'will' begin to plan to reduce the resources allocated to X to something else that is proven to make money. They do it and they do it often... Samsung uses 'very' conservative busniness practices. I would have MUCH rather had IBM take over openmail.

    Peter

    --
    www.alphalinux.org
    1. Re:Dealing with Samsung by King_TJ · · Score: 2

      If this is true, then OpenMail is doomed.
      Quite frankly, no-one (save a few fanatics) is going to put forth lots of effort to convince a company to add enough functionality to a product so it becomes viable to purchase. It's Samsung's duty to add the things that are lacking, since they're picking up someone else's failing product.

      I'm not going to recommend OpenMail to *any* colleges or businesses until they first prove that they have the programming ability to fix the problems in the current product, and add functionality (such as calendar/scheduling) that users have come to expect in Exchange Server.

    2. Re:Dealing with Samsung by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's Samsung's duty to add the things that are lacking, since they're picking up someone else's failing product.

      They don't have any such "duty", RMS, not if the additions won't make enough money back to justify the expense. That's the nature of the capitalist market system. Ask your retirement fund managers if you have questions.

  59. Re:can anything /= outlook use the shared calendar by KeyserDK · · Score: 0

    Binary claim they they have a client Insight

    You can try out the 2.6 for free i think. The client sucks though, allthough it works with exchange, the last time i tried it.

    --
    still reading?
  60. Open Source alternative not far away by ChrisWong · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think it is fair to mention Caldera's Volution Messaging Server, which is marketed as a Linux-based, low cost alternative to Exchange. What is interesting is that a large part of this product is actually open source: Postfix, Cyrus-IMAP, OpenLDAP, OpenSSL, HORDE/IMP. Caldera's contribution is arguably valuable: they tied the whole mess together, added a user-friendly interface (integration and user friendliness is something open source projects are often horrible at) and added Outlook-compatible calendaring. Still, what is notable is that the open source world is already a long way there. All it needs is packaging and calendaring. Make it work out of the box without the fuss, and you got an Exchange-killer.

  61. Apart from... by gadders · · Score: 1

    ..Lotus Notes/Domino, that has all these features, runs on Unix and Linux, and most importantly ACTUALLY WORKS.

  62. Don't forget.... by frost22 · · Score: 1
    For those of not familiar, essentially OpenMail is the *only* e-mail platform out there, besides Exchange that will support a whole slew of Microsoft Outlook features - something necessary in the enterprise
    Lotus Notes.

    'nuff said. f.
    --
    ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
  63. Other option for fully compatible exchange server by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    http://www.bynari.com

    Mostly marketed to run on IBM zSeries and S/390, but runs on any Linux. Fully Exchange compatible, including calendar and scheduling.

  64. What about PHP Groupware or Now Up To Date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    other alternatives?

  65. We need open groupware standards. by Sharkeys-Day · · Score: 1

    IMAP and LDAP have provided us with the means to share email and address books, even with proprietary exchange servers.

    What we need is more support for standards for shared calendaring too. Email clients which have calendars should be able to send and receive appointments in vCalendar/iCalendar format, and allow the user to accept the appointment.

    Beyond that that, they should support iTIP (RFC 2446) for general group scheduling.

    Do any opensource projects support this yet? All the open source projects I have looked at develope their own proprietary methods of sharing calendar information.

  66. Ever heard of Cybozu? was: Re:kick MS out of the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Its not _perfect_. but it DOES support group calendering and shared contacts.
    The people at my org that wanted exchange are happy with it as a substitute..

    www.cybozu.com

  67. OpenMail was $$$ Expensive by andrewz · · Score: 1

    We priced OpenMail last year for a enterprise solution. We compared with Exchange, Sendmail, and the Iplanet solution. It was just too expensive. We ended up customizing Sendmail.

    - AZ

    1. Re:OpenMail was $$$ Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All those post-it notes and the running around people do to arrange meetings in your company are what is probably expensive.

      But carry on.

  68. A Guess. by hotsauce · · Score: 1

    Let me guess: You don't get promoted much.

  69. Another option: Teamware Office by sebastian_proteus · · Score: 1
    Speaking in the line of Exchange alternatives, one might also have a look at Teamware Office (www.teamware.com) - a commercial solution.

    It runs on Solaris, Linux and Windows. Has a whole array of features: mail, library (document storage), discussion forums, distributed enterprises. It supports the usual set of standards: IMAP, POP3, NNTP, LDAP (not in the Linux version though :( etc.

  70. NOT the only option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    www.phpgroupware.org

    `nuff said

  71. OpenMail... by Zeio · · Score: 2

    It's a great product; it's hugely scalable and unbelievably fast. It comes out with monthly to quarterly builds, has a free 50 user key for Linux until 2005. Keys and the RPMs are openly available via ftp.

    The Linux version is well supported and comes as an RPM (that works). The message store is fast as hell; the web client is excellent and comes in a few flavors.

    The sad thing about Slashdot and what keeps me from posting here is that this is old news. Samsung picked up OpenMail months ago. Why I don't bother to post - well, those of us who don't know the editors know why I don't post.

    linuxkey@openmail.com is the email address to obtain Linux keys, there is a useful but slightly dated FAQ about installing HPOM here, http://www.hpc-consulting.com/OM-QS-Configuration- Guide-rev1-1.htm , and buried in this ftp (ftp.itrc.hp.com) somewhere are the tarred RPMs.

    The licensing is kind of freakish and annoying, Exchange administrators enjoy being able to steal seats, but they also enjoy a broken product. I have investigated Exchange 2000, we flat out denied the product as unscalable and useless, and are very glad we used OpenMail.

    Death to Carly Fiorina - the crappy CEO of HP (and the organizer of the Lucent spin off from AT&T a COMPLETE failure). She is a bane to HP. She tried to kill OpenMail, fricking SAMSUNG picked it up. Death to Carly. Walter B. Hewlett, David Woodley Packard, Susan Packard Orr and the Previous CEO of HP, Lewis E Platt, ALL HATE YOU CARLY. YOU ARE WRONG AND THE PACKARD FAMILY IS RIGHT. The merger with Compaq is a bastardization. She actually destroyed the HP RPN calculator division because it wasn't growing fast enough! The division makes money - but doesn't grow fast enough. She has no 30 year vision, she is a horrible CEO, and while Steve Jobs of Apple takes a $1 a year salary (and that's what he deserves for not porting OS X to x86), she took 3 Million on bonus this year even though the STOCK TANKED.

    I love OpenMail; I love RPN calculators, and long live the real HP (and Agilent). Death to Carly. (Hey, Carly, I dumped my HP stock when I saw you messing around, and I saved myself a lot of money by doing so.)

    PS - HewPaq will fail. They *think* they will compete with IBM, hah. Ha. ha. IBM still makes new technology, not fires whole divisions of engineers. And Carly, learn from your FAILED Price Waterhouse endeavor. You suck as a CEO. You are a bad person.

    Long live OpenMail! :)

    --
    Legalize the constitution. Think for yourself question authority.
  72. Where's GroupWise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    GroupWise isn't dead yet, either. Not by a long shot. I'm really enjoying BulletProof and it's full slate of features. Novell's done a really good job with it, and it deserves some respect in the groupware arena. Unfortunately the product suffers from traditional Novell clueless marketing, but what's new about that?

  73. Not compatibility by ahde · · Score: 3, Informative
    This is great news considering OpenMail was the only serious Unix-based competitor to Microsoft Exchange.


    there are lots of Unix-based competitors to Microsoft Exchange. What about sendmail? There are not a lot of Exchange clones with code licensed from Microsoft in them that will behave exactly the same for Outlook clients. Even then there is now Evolution from Ximian. Volution from Caldera, Insight from Bynari, and various web based solutions.

    How about an alphabet soup of open standards that does the job better, easier, more efficiently: POP, IMAP, SMTP, HTTP, SSL, CGI, FTP, LDAP, ABCDEFG, ETC?

    Its not called competition if you're selling the same product.

    1. Re:Not compatibility by benb · · Score: 1

      You forgot iCalendar, iTIP, and iMIP.

      See Mozilla's upcoming calendar client,

  74. Shared Contacts via LDAP? by gtwreck · · Score: 1

    I have been looking for some time for a way to replace Exchange Server in my organization. In fact, I would like to replace the NT domain controllers in my organization as well. There are two things limiting me right now.

    1) I can't find a way to do shared contacts. What a really want for Christmas is some way to put shared contacts in OpenLDAP and have them accessible (and editable) through MS Outlook clients. I can easily do email address books this way, but I really want full contact records viewable transparently in Outlook.

    2) I can't use Samba because it doesn't support trusts between NT Domains. I understand there are some not-yet released projects like Samba-TNG that may be able to do this, but I can't put something not even released in a production environment.

    Wishlist: I would also like shared calendaring, but am not holding my breath on that one.

    Does anybody have any suggestions?

    1. Re:Shared Contacts via LDAP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take a look at Volution from Caldera. It isn't all open source, but it's major components are.

  75. Supports Outlook as well as Linux by t482 · · Score: 1

    As is discussed elsewhere you can run iNotes for Outlook and still use your beloved Outlook client...

    (Linux support in RNext). Or you can use a browser - for one of the best browser based email systems. Personally I like IMAP clients under linux and the Notes client under winblows.

  76. OpenMail isn't by itself any more... by iceT · · Score: 2

    ...OpenMail is the *only* e-mail platform out there, besides Exchange that will support a whole slew of Microsoft Outlook features.

    That is not true (any more). The Calendar product in OpenMail is a version of the Steltor CorporateTime calendar. The Steltor Calendar has an Outlook 'service provider' that allows Outlook to talk to their calendar server. Combine that with SMTP/IMAP4/LDAP, and you've got a close competitor to Exchange..

    Take a look at Bynari's Insight product... for another 'possbility'.. Calendar-server less calender service!

    Oh, one thing about OpenMail.. it IS standards based, as long as you don't mind running an X.400 mail system with an SMTP gateway...

    --
    -- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
  77. Only serious competitor to Exchange? by MythosTraecer · · Score: 1

    This is great news considering OpenMail was the only serious Unix-based competitor to Microsoft Exchange.

    Except of course for Lotus Domino, which thousands of corporations run quite happily on Solaris, Linux, and all IBM servers (AIX, OS/400, OS/390).

    I personally hate Domino (and Exchange), but saying that OpenMail is the only serious competitor to Exchange when there are so many Domino and Notes users is incorrect.

    --

    --Mythos
  78. Re:Moderators, you do not know what not to do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it was not a recommendation to moderate the post itself as offtopic either... Ah, metamoderation...

  79. Re:Outlook but not exchange? - pine by invisik · · Score: 0

    Sorry, but pine is the bomb. I've a SGI Indigo2 R1000 Impact system and only run pine for my mail. It really comes up fast with Impact graphics!

    -m

    PS: pine definately ain't broke!

    --
    http://www.invisik.com
  80. Pricing? Wasn't it free for non-commercial or ? by invisik · · Score: 0

    I'd love to run this at home for the experience, but don't want to pay for licenses. Can't seem to get a login/pass without a support contract. Didn't a previous version allow you to use in a non-commercial setting or like 10-user free or something?

    How can I learn and experiment with this server in a non-commercial environment without buying a license?

    -m

    --
    http://www.invisik.com
  81. Steltor is more maintained and does Exchange stuff by Nailer · · Score: 3, Informative

    there are lots of Unix-based competitors to Microsoft Exchange.

    What about sendmail?
    Bad example. Sendmail is one of the most non Unix pieces of software ever, in terms of modular and secure design. More to the point, its at best clone on the Exchange Internet Mail Connector. An MTA != A groupware app.

    There are not a lot of Exchange clones with code licensed from Microsoft in them that will behave exactly the same for Outlook clients.

    Not, but there are clones which will behave exactly (as in, equivalent functionality and no staff retraining) the same for Outlook clients.

    Evolution from Ximian.
    Yes indeed. Exchange connectors for Exchange5.5 and 2000 will be avaliable at the start of next year. They do all the X400 based stuff Outlook and Exchange do, including group calendaring, unsending messages, etc.

    Volution from Caldera
    I thought this was a system management tool and a repackaging of postfix, an imap server, and a couple of other bits and pieces. Again, an MTA and MDA are not groupware. Though it it has OpenLDAP and more importantly some way of doing the calendaring stuff it would be close. Corect me if this is the case.

    Insight from Bynari
    Indeed. Insight also does all the Exhcange - > Outlook specific stuff. The client is also free as in beer, so download it and give it a try. it does seem a little clunky tho, especially when compared to evolution.

    Steltor
    You didn't mention Steltor that seems to be the best of the Exchange comaptible groupware servers. I have yet to implement it myself but from what I understand its much better maintained and works better with existing Unix services than the others.

  82. What? 117 users per server is NOT `scales well'! by leonbrooks · · Score: 2

    35,000 users / 300 servers => 117 users per server. I could do that with PostFix and 300 matchbox '386es! IBM have TWO MILLION USERS on ONE zSeries box, no sweat, for much less than the software cost alone of running two million Exchange clients. Now that is `scales well'!

    Damn Microsoft and their abuse of terminology! An `embedded' system should not require 64 or 128MB of RAM and gigabytes of disk!PS: visit Bynari for another Exchange alternative, including alternative clients.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  83. You didn't research very hard by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    I researched for days looking for a Linux/BSD based Open-source solution for this functionality

    What can I say? ``Bynari?'' Visit http://www.bynari.com/ (no commercial connection).

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  84. Two days? Try three months... after six years! by leonbrooks · · Score: 2
    the vulnerability was fixed 2 days later,

    Which is uniquie because it's stunningly responsive for Microsoft.

    Consider IE's recent broken-MIME-handling vulnerability, in which you could get an EXE file silently run by shipping it from your webserver with a mime type like audio/x-midi; it's been in IE for at least six years and it took Microsoft three months from the initial public outcry to the fix.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
    1. Re:Two days? Try three months... after six years! by gazbo · · Score: 1
      Consider IE's recent broken-MIME-handling vulnerability
      This is in fact the vulnerability I was talking about. I concede that the time between discovery and fix was greater than 2 days, however your claim that it was 3 months is contradicted by the /. article, which claims "Microsoft has known about it since November 19;"

      Now it has been known for /. to once or twice get facts wrong, but...

      Anyhow, I digress. What I meant was that the article is amusing when read with the knowlege that 2 days after the article was published, the hole was fixed.
  85. Easy Openmail Configuration : maybe someday? by Kaine · · Score: 1

    FYI, about a year ago I posted an entry in Webmin's wishlist about an easy HP OpenMail configuration module. Sam Przyswa started to code about a month after. I kept in touch with him for a while, but now I have no news.

    I believe an easy configuration could make network admins interested in the product, which I am sure could easily replace costly Exchange Servers in Small/Medium Enterprises. Many IT managers I know don't want to hear about OpenMail because they would have to cope with Unix command line and read new documentation. Really, this would change if OpenMail could be easily set up.

    It's too bad I can't get in touch with Sam again, I just hope that some kind spirit would help in developing such a useful Webmin module...

    Cheers people.

    --
    Language is what makes us different from primitive animals, and bureaucrats.
  86. Re:Here it comes..the Notes UI by Rassalon · · Score: 1

    Many a folk complain that the UI in Notes uses many a convention that errs from the well trodden path of M$. Well, of course! Notes clients had to accomodate OS/2, Mac, Win 3.1, et cetera.

    And yes, the server is very stable now. But it is only as stable as the OS. Run the Domino server on top of Wintendo and what do you get? Run in on an IBM s390 machine and...well, you get what you pay for.

    Oh, by the way, it runs very well under Red Hat, too.

  87. Checkout www.notesbench.org by Rassalon · · Score: 1

    Check out www.notesbench.org

    They have all the stats about how many users you can stuff into one Notes server.

    And yes, some organizations do have this many users per box.

  88. Notes is not Proprietory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many other groupware servers support. Javascript, Java, COM, CORBA etc we are doing a lot of work with notes/domino and Java , jsut try that with Exchange