Slashdot Mirror
Drop-In Replacement For Exchange Now Open Source
Fjan11 writes "Over 150 man-years of work were added to the Open Source community today when Zarafa decided to put their successful Exchange server replacement under GPLv3. This is not just the typical mail-server-that-works-with-Outlook, it is the whole package — including 100% MAPI, web access, tasks, iCal and Activesync. (The native syncing works great with my iPhone!) Binaries and source are available for all major Linux distros."
That's right, Microsoft: open source software can gun for you too, motherfuckers!
I seem to remember ogo being a full replacement and that's been out for a while. Also, although you want to provide compatibility with Exchange, don't you want to provide additional capabilities so that Exchange systems are forced to upgrade to you, rather than the other way round? (Embrace-and-extend, but non-toxic.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
They better start hiring support personnel, because there will likely be profits to be had with service contracts. Maybe even a Redhat buyout/partnership
Over the last few months, I've been forced to use Exchange/Outlook a lot, and for the life of me I don't get the big deal. But I know that people consider it a big deal, so I wish this company the best, and fair
amount of profit.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Linux is for the garbage can!
Sweet! What won't Linux run on these days?
Those who believe the Internet is private,
find their privates are on the Internet.
If I had some mod points I would give you one for funny. Ignorant, but funny.
Well, that's certainly nice, push-mail, activesync, mapi, all the things people like about Exchange in an open source variant, why the hell not?
I've been running OpenGroupware myself as a cheap replacement for Exchange (using funambol to replace ActiveSync) and it works nicely, but the more alternatives to Exchange the better!
I've yet to try this one, i hope it's atleast as "easy" to manage as an Exchange server tho, if you need 10 Rocket Scientists to install it, then open sourcing it won't make it magicly defeat Exchange, and sometimes i get the impression people tend to forget other people use their applications too.
In short, the more the merrier! Long live FOSS!
Look at this... The topic was just posted and the site is already Slashdotted... WTG!
I've not looked at this software, but Exchange is one hell of a piece of machinery. Say what you want about MS, but I've seen an Exchange server with terabytes of email, gigabytes per day, keeping up fine. It's a pain in the ass sometimes to be sure, but I wouldn't trust my production network to this today anyway.
Mod parent up. May have found yet another use for Linux.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Last time I looked on the Zarafa website, it looked like the free community (GPL) edition had a limited number of MAPI clients. I guess this is still the case? If so, it's not really a practical replacement for Exchange unless you pay for the commercial edition.
Was kinda hoping that it was a desktop app. But I guess it's up to Thunderbird and KOffice/Kmail to get up to speed now.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
..I'll DEFINATELY be installing this for our company's mail server. I currently have Zimbra setup, which is very nice, but the bosses don't like it because it doesn't integrate into Outlook very well (iCalendar, contacts, etc), without the outlook connector that you have to pay for. No hate on Zimbra though...I absolutely love it's capabilities and ease-of-use, but it's a deal-breaker w/the management types if won't support the 'advanced' features in Outlook.
Linux is for the garbage can!
Sweet! What won't Linux run on these days?
The used condoms inside the garbage can.
The nice thing about GPL software is that it's easy to go in and change arbitrary limitations like that.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Nevermind. Someone moded it into another dimension.
I did a quick test with this product a few weeks ago, and it sync'd well with my phone. My only concern was that Microsoft appears to assert patent claims relating to ActiveSync. Anyone have thoughts or experiences on using this product in the US market?
...Zarafa decided to put their successful Exchange server replacement under GPLv3. This is not just the typical mail-server-that-works-with-Outlook, it is the whole package including 100% MAPI, web access, tasks, iCal and Activesync...
While I hail this development, I wonder what "successful" means in this story. Here are questions I might want answered:
Was it "successful" at sales? If so where are the figures? I would not really praise them that much if the original goal - to make money, could not be reached making these fellas to opensource everything...much like what Netscape did years ago.
Was it "successful" at actually replacing Exchange with no [significant] trouble for Systems Administrators? I need to know. How come it is not that known in IT circles? What's going on?
Office Depot, Office Max, and Staples reported a shortage of office chairs in the supply chain. When asked, representatives were unsure to the exact nature of the shortage.
"According to our suppliers, someone in Redmond, Washington has decided to corner the market on office chairs," one company spokesman said.
----------BREAKING NEWS-----------
This just in! According to NORAD, the nation's defense system went on alert after controllers detected a large number of unknown flying objects coming from the Pacific Northwest. While the status has not entered DEFCON 1, a spokesman for the Defense Department assured the public that this was a precautionary measure as the objects themselves do not appear to be very large and that they originated from the Northwest rules out an nuclear attack from either China or the former Soviet Union.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
can be measured to be 1050 dog-years of work.
I'll believe it when they recover from the slashdotting and I have the code on my servers. Last I knew, MAPI required licenses from Microsoft. Can anyone confirm that the GPL version support MAPI access such as Outlook 2003, 2007 and Outlook Anywhere access on PDA and phones?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Zarafa is available under the Affero GPLv3, which has some rather critical differences from the regular GPLv3, namely that a lot of people don't consider it to be a Free Software license. Specifically, it has a lot of properties of a EULA in that you can't modify it as you see fit even if you don't plan to distribute it.
Rats. I was looking forward to this.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
they used to produce a PHP implementation of active sync I have not seen a MAPI (outlook compatible) version or anything other than a webmail....
has anyone actually got any details on the technical side of things I can get to their website as drupal keeps buckling under slashdot effect
can I simply hook up outlook to their server ?
regards
John Jones
Big things missing though - No public folders, which allow automated, customized workflow processes, no single instance store (each attachment is a separate file within the message store,) limited support (enterprise class support 24x7 is > 15,000 euros and their business hours aren't conducive to US business support - GMT+1) and it runs on linux instead of bsd *grin*
With that being said, I can see where a LOT of businesses will be able to make extensive use of this. Best of luck to them!
"In the end, there is simply no weapon more devastating than the truth, delivered in just the right way." - tnk1
Can you imagine a Beowolf cluster of those? Take THAT, big iron.
[citation needed]
Anybody know for sure if this works with a Blackberry Enterprise Server (BES)?
I am currently looking for a groupware solution for our company... But everyone looks to be bumping heads. If someone in the community would just use Postfix, Cyrus or Dovecot and other open source technologies instead of writing their own, maybe there would be a decent groupware solution for linux. Egroupware is close, but their interface sucks and is overly complicated. Zimbra looks nice, but requires their own versions of everything, plus their license is not total open source. Citadel is also close, but they too have a crapy looking interface and also have a different language for a lot of stuff (Rooms etc). Does anyone know of a good groupware solution for Linux?
Really? A lot of people doesn't think it's a free software license? Who are these people, and where can I see a reference, please.
I mean, it's about the only article left on Wikipedia that doesn't have either a "Critisism" or "Controversy" section.
Not saying you aren't correct, but I am saying that you are making spurios and loose claims. In other words, "[citation needed]". ;)
Which is an important difference...
Parent was obviously modded down by some newbie to moderation who didn't get the joke, doesn't understand throwing chairs in Redmond, and modded it off-topic because he didn't understand it. This is a lousy excuse for moderation!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Yeah, I hadn't really thought about that, but... then why doesn't someone fork it and drop the restriction altogether?
How hard can it be to undo that, if you have the GPL source?
Only because the people with Linux experience and the people with condom experience are disjoint sets.
Drop in replacement, you say? Will MOSS or CRM play with it? Will it pick up AD rules and GPOs? What about BCM and Project Server?
OR, is it just another glorified POP/IMAP box?
I read the feature set from the web site.
I know Exchange, I was in the original product group way back when. This AINT no DROP IN REPLACEMENT.
That said, for what it does, good for them!
But people should watch their words. Side by side against Exchange 2007, it would not be a fair fight.
Links to packages seem to work, but the link to the source code just gives me some checksum error page. I'm already becoming an enemy with AGPLv3.
Because this isn't actually being released under the GPL.
As the composer of the lovely post, I feel some unhappiness towards the new slashdot display system. So I'm just letting some steam out...
Fuck you taco :(
From their FAQ:
If I build Zarafa from source, can I still buy a license for Outlook access?
Technically this is possible, but you always need to have the Zarafa-professional package for Outlook support. This package is available for the default supported distributions.
But not GPL3
I guess the zimbra folk sold to yahoo early: its a whole other bag of chips now.
MS is running for their money, and they aint gonna get.
NO SIG
Well, it's being released under the Affero GPLv3. I am not a supporter of Affero.
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
From the F.A.Q.:
"The first three users that connect to the community versions with Outlook can only use Outlook. All other users can only connect via webaccess, imap/pop3 or Z-Push."
Yet another open source exchange replacement that didn't open source everything required to interact with outlook.
Without that, whats the point?
It looks like they have an evaluation version for download but there is a price list for the commercial version.
Any ideas on whether the download is feature compliant and if you still have to pay anything to use it (open source license, but is it 'free' to use with no legal issues)?
If you had to pay the lists on the sidebar this is much higher than what we pay for Exchange licenses, even if you take every discount on the page into account.
I would also be interested to know how large the system could scale.
Linux is for the garbage can!
Sweet! What won't Linux run on these days?
The used condoms inside the garbage can.
Well there are condoms with built-in vibrators now so we just need to add a processor.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
I just get bad checksum so there is a way to advertise... say its (A)GPL and then not provide the source !
links anyone ?
why enterprises run Windows?
Does anybody have links to success stories of large(-ish) corporations converting to Zarafa?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Chair prelaunch autocycle engaged, firing chair in 3...2...1...
Has anyone tried the OBM offering yet? http://www.obm.org/doku.php
I saw them at LinuxWorld in San Francisco recently. Looked very nice.
I can't tell from their front page whether they do MAPI.
Or do you instaed prefer to call everything that is fact, but goes against your world view "FUD"? I'd say Affero GPLv3 would be enough to keep me from using this product. Exchange is used in hardcore production environments... it is no place to play around with crazy, untested, product licenses.
"Hey look boss, this is an exchange server replacement*. The best part is if we modify the publicly facing webmail portions even the slighest, we'll have to offer every single bit of code that touched our modifications on our webpage too! Isn't that awesome?"
Ooops... looks like I went against your worldview again. FUD?
*except for $list$ of major differences
Quick! I need a baby in a month! Find me 9 women!
What sort of misguided geek thinks it's a good idea to work on a project which facilitates the rest of us getting invited to meetings?
As a former MAPI programmer (don't worry - I've largely recovered) I have to point out that this is utterly irrelevant.
The only compelling reason to use an Exchange compatible server is to support Outlook. The issue is that Zarafa charges for the Outlook connector. This is not a new business model, people, and truth be told its been a fairly common paradigm of 'Exchange-killers' for quite awhile now. Nothing is killed until the connector is free. Full stop.
So why doesn't anyone offer a free connector? Because it is ridiculous amount of work to build and it is something corporations are willing to pay for. It's not that replicating the server functionality is difficult, it's that Microsoft twisted and violated open standards into something utterly unholy known as Exchange to ensure that nobody but Microsoft could communicate with it. MAPI is Microsoft's obfuscation of traditional messaging protocols and is infamously poorly documented.
I wrote about this issue for Redmond magazine about 2 years ago and nothing's changed. The connector is still the kicker and, regardless of how nifty the back-end is, until an open-source Outlook connector appears Exchange will remain one of MS's top 5 products.
Nothing but PR to see here. Move along...
I'm not 100% sure but....isn't the community version only licensed for 3 outlook users ? So isn't this fairly useless for anyone apart from a 2 man consultancy firm ? Dentist ? Doctor ?
Can I use this in a 120 seat site ?
That's a great sig. I like it the other way around though.
I think the real stuff is in the client (disclaimer: my employer does this), as organizations aren't going to move to _replace_ Exchange. Anyone enterprise small enough would likely use a different server (and protocol) altogether anyway.
Just my $0.02.
I can give a meeting room, or a projector, or any other resource-- it's own exchange account- and set it to !automatically accept! some peoples meeting request, and other people's requests will have to be approved.. and when I send a meeting request to my boss, and two co-workers, and conference room B-- then conference room B will automatically show that it is 'busy' for my meeting.. and if I need a projector later-- I can send an invite to the 'projector' and reserve it as well..
I can de-invite individual attendees....
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
> What do you say to the Hundreds of Thousands of clients who get their Exchange via SBS (Small Business Server)? And that's just the 2003 version.
That they require too many administrators and cause more downtime.
> How many Enterprise apps do you know of by ANY vendor that dont degrade with low disk space? Come on, dude, that aint fair and you know it.
He also mentioned it degrading due to *large mailbox size* That's the big PITA. And you have to buy crapware to shovel messages around, whereas with normal mail spools, you can shuffle mail around pretty easily with a few quick scripts.
> Exchange is one of those apps that can look bad if installed by an idiot. You would think a proper architect would have worked out space and usage requirements early on.
Yeah, but it's also one of those apps that's usually installed by an idiot.
> How do you reach a low space condition ANYWAY, if you are making proper use of quotas? No product takes more abuse due to stupid administration than Exchange server.
No product needs as much administration as Exchange server.
> How do you reach a low space condition ANYWAY, if you are making proper use of quotas? No product takes more abuse due to stupid administration than Exchange server.
Powerpoint with #$#%ing embedded videos. But that's another story entirely.
> But please, inflexible? When you have dozens of 100K+ client installations of Exchange humming along at places like Chevron and others, while the very same product can keep 20 people happy on a $500 box, you cant call it inflexible. Thats just wrong, pal.
Everyone else can do that too. But they do it better. The main advantage of Exchange is all that integration so they can send polls or schedule meetings or whatever else. But as far as simple email goes, Exchange is more trouble than its worth.
Which is why this project is important.
Outlook support
If only we had the source so that we could remove the limit. Oh, the humanity!
include $sig;
1;
it's around 2,400-- but then you also require 25 outlook licenses.
once again, the price of the software is negligable compared to the cost of 25 employee's salaries...
go ahead, waste a week of each one's time teaching them whats different about the new program.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The free version is far from feature complete. Most notably, it is limited to 3 Outlook users.
http://www.zarafa.com/content/versions
The text you are quoting does not appear anywhere in the AGPLv3. You must be looking at the old Affero license, which did have significant problems, or a draft of the AGPL.
The only difference between the AGPLv3 and the GPLv3 (apart from the preamble which is non-binding) is section 13:
13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the work with which it is combined will remain governed by version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
Note the "Not withstanding any other provision" phrase. Earlier in the license it says:
You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force.
where,
A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
Section 13 does not override this - you are perfectly free to modify works that you do not distribute in any way you wish.
Furthermore, this is not EULA in any way shape or form - the restrictions in section 13 only apply if you are making derivative works. Under US copyright law third parties do not have permission to create derivative works (apart from what is allowed under fair use) without approval from the copyright holder. This section is only giving the terms under which you are granted permission to make derivate works.
it's around 2,400-- but then you also require 25 outlook licenses.
once again, the price of the software is negligable compared to the cost of 25 employee's salaries...
go ahead, waste a week of each one's time teaching them whats different about the new program.
This is server software we are talking about here. The end users don't change their software (that's the entire point). So there is no cost for retraining end users.
You would obviously have to train the server administration staff, but even if you did put in a "Genuine Microsoft" Exchange server, you would probably still have to do this.
Besides, even if the front end did change, a week of training is a LOT. As it would be replacement software, the concepts are the same, it's only which button you push to do it that changes. So if you can't train them in a matter of hours, if not minutes, you really do need new employees.
Where I work, we use a non-MS stand alone calendaring solution. Our end user training takes a couple of hours.
How long do you think it would take to train users to use the new version of MS Office?
Ever stop to think
That's fine. That makes it a viable alternative for many companies while still allowing the vendor to make a profit from the big customers. The larger installed base of free users increases the visibility of the product, and everyone benefits. It also means that consultants can pick up a copy for free and learn its ins-and-outs. Even if it wasn't GPL, a commercial product could benefit similarly from making single-seat licenses free. I evaluated a Linux-based financial accounting app that was priced that way. My company didn't end up using it, but I liked the fact that I could download it, learn it, and then offer my services as a consultant for other companies that might want to use it.
I'm happy for the server-side people if this is progress on replacing Exchange, but what about replacing Outlook itself?
It's one of the 3-4 missing apps that prevent me from moving to Linux. I mean, how hard can it be, to implement an email client with integrated calendar and contacts? It doesn't need every single bell and whistle - just the few features i depend on (rich text in contact memo fields, savable contact searches). I'd happily buy such an app for Linux (at, say, the same price as Outlook.) Outlook's been around for what, 11 years? And in all that time, nobody's thought to make a viable Linux alternative?
Is it just me or can you not download the source?
When I click on the source package link I'm greeted by "Bad checksum or timed out. Please re-open the original link used for this download"
if this work as advertised...now we need a drop-in replacement for Outlook client.
I am not aware of any other Software that could do Email and Calendar, Contact and Sync so great. (oh let me know if there is any).
On the other hand, we probably need a Outlook that could have two or more MAPI account.
AI WOANT!.
o :b
Only 3 users for the open source edition? Color me unimpressed...
http://drupal.zarafa.com/content/versions
Of course there hasn't yet been developed a pill for intelligence, so management will still want some of the silly frills involved here, like the calendar. Have hope; we may someday see the end of microsucks horseshit.
You said:
I'd like to believe that most slashdotters don't shit in their sleep.
instead of:
I believe that most slashdotters don't shit in their sleep.
I'm with you, bro.
jeez, you're practically being begged to search for the "#define MAPILIMIT 5" and increase it. if you can't make it that far, you're on the wrong website.
nevermind... not really open source where it counts
Trolls.
If you only require 25 licenses, most companies rely on Small Biz Server which makes bundled licensing significantly cheaper. Also, an Exchange CAL comes with a license for Outlook/Entourage...it does not require a separate Outlook or Office CAL to run the client.
It looks like a nice try, but Citadel seems to be better.
Exchange has traditionally had exactly one reason for its popularity: vendor lock-in. If this really is a drop-in replacement without annoying CALs, we'll be Microsoft-free on our servers by Monday.
Right. It has nothing to do with it's functionality, reliability, ease of use, etc... Exchange, Groupwise, and Notes do what corporations need....they allow for integration and collaboration. I have never understood why OSS or Linux zealots will howl at the moon about how unstable Windoze is or how they can't get Exchange or MSSQL to work. Then two seconds later look down their noses at IT guys that support MS products and have zero problems throwing together a stable XP machine and adminning a stable Exchange server.
Out of over 300 clients, I have some running pure POP3 or Zimbra and others running Exchange. A fair percentage of those Exchange servers have over 40GB stores and handle a GB or so of traffic a day. Guess what....they run fine. 365 days a year they chug along moving mail....just like the BSD boxes and Linux boxes.
If an organization can't afford a couple of grand for collaboration...they don't need it. It's kind of like those clients that whine about the cost of a backup...wanting to go with a cheap solution. You get what you are willing to invest in.
It's so stupid when companies don't just go all OSS. I'd buy a support package if their software was OSS and didn't suck. I'd pay at least as much as I'm paying for my current (sucky) mail server.
I'd actually like to have a rack server with the software and hardware all supported by the vender like my Google Appliance. I'd be more concerned that a mail server be OSS though as an upgrade path is more important for a mail server.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Mimic Poorly, $$ as Much, go GPLv3 - SlashDot Love
Wow, brilliant, free advertising and they still don't ahve to provide anything of use because of the size and ocmplexity of the package of software and component dependency.
So unless you are going to make your own Exchange clone, with 'limited features', this is cool or good why?
Why not come out with a product that 'replaces' exchange and actually works as well and have more features?
Can the OSS world offer anything that gives 'more' features instead of still carbon copying MS crap, and still designing UIs that look like Windows 95?
Cool software that is 'better', would be a good start if you are going to take on a MS product. Is this concept too much to ask?
I must say I am wondering why their licenses page state it is Affero GPL, and not simply GPL?
Is it GPL compatible? Can the code be used in other GPL projects or forked, etc?
You are denied to refuse to share your changes.
You deny yourself because you want to keep the changes to yourself.
I just tested Zarafa's IMAP support and it has major issues. In fact it ranks as the worst IMAP server I've tested so far.
I run a SBS server for myself--
I really tried and could not find where they mentioned for regular exchange that the cals included outlook seats the same as with SBS
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
I've been trying to train end-users in one particular piece of data-entry software for two years and they still can't shift-tab to move back an input. It all depends on who your end users are and whether there are any consequences to not learning.
Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
That this would be too good to be true. Same deal as Scalix which offers you 10 Outlook-compatible CALs. Not really and truely free, is it? I have my eye on something more interesting, www.openchange.org. This, while still a good bit away from a release, aims to be an open source implementation of Exchange Server. Once this comes to release, I am sure it will put some pressure on these "crippleware" packages.
You apparently don't understand the definition.
The section you quoted from the Affero GPL does not deny Freedom 1. You are still free to study the program. You are still free to adapt it to your needs. With the AGPL, modifiers AND hosts must also preserve the freedom for others to do so, even if that is a burden.
A burden is not a denial of freedom, it is rather the requirement of enabling freedom. In other words, it is an assumed responsibility.
The GPL family has always been focused on user-freedoms over author-freedoms, and in the case of AGPL, hosting-freedom. As soon as one chooses to modify the code, or in the case of AGPL3, HOST the code, they're burdened by certain behaviours. This is a utilitarian calculation to maximize societal freedom at the expense of individual liberty. You may not agree with it, but it fits the definition of free software.
Note that I'm not a fan of the AGPL either, but I definitely think that it's free software -- it's the purest sense of the FSF's social agenda. But the FSF also recognizes that many would find the AGPL too burdensome, hence why it's not the only license they offer.
-Stu
Migrating off Exchange is fine. You canc onnect to Exchange with IMAP and dump data. Just like you can with every other open source server. Problem is that Exchange has features which these other servers do not
Such as the ability for anal administrators to turn off IMAP for nebulous "security reasons" in favor of requiring the employees to use Microsoft software to connect.
The MAPI stuff and other advanced features are plugins that are not GPL.
If your company chooses to make a business decision (for whatever reason) to disable IMAP, thats their prerogative. That has nothing to do with Exchange.
What is a common "whatever reason" to disable IMAP in favor of a protocol for which Microsoft charges prohibitive royalties?
Shift tab is pretty elementry. Are you sure that your employer isn't just making the decision to hire morons (not you) so he can cut salaried rather then pay a competent person a few bucks?
I mean almost anyone with experience in office or a spread sheet, hell even an outlook form would know about Shift+tab and tab.
Here is a training hint, cut the cord on the mouse and make them suffer for a week without it. They will learn really quick what all the keyboard shortcuts are.
Email was designed in early 90s, the era of slow modem-based internet when offline messaging was a good thing. 90s are gone. Now internet is fast even for video. For many people their phones are constantly connected to internet delivering RSS from blogs and XMPP with chat.
The problem now is not with Exchange, even not with protocols it is based on. Time changed. The way of communication is changed.
In our company we use mostly our corp web-portals and our corp instant messaging servers for most of our internal communications.
Discussion threads have more usability and accessibility when published on portal blogs with RSS feeds to a phone. Same thing about calendars - we publish our personal and group calendars on our portals. When I need to update files - I publish them on our corporate portal. Of course all publishing is secure and control using right and permissions. When we need just a quick exchange on ideas - we chat in jabber.
We use email mostly only when communicating with old-fashion internet users. So, email is like a backup communication way, like a land line phone. But why should we invest money to backup communication way? We just use Postfix + LDAP + IMAP, all with web-based access through our corp portals.
Remember, the primary goal is always communication. Email was just a tool for it. Email time is gone. Now it is time for communication based on web-2.0 technologies.
Less is more !
I bet God must love these Linux administrators. I'd love them myself in the new uniforms for female Linux administrators.
http://zarafa.com/
They release as open source a version of their exchange replacement mail server, you can read here
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/19/2023252
Drop-In Replacement For Exchange Now Open Source
Please search first, then ask...
Have you used Exchange?
Quack, quack.
How can it be called a drop in replacement if it requires an additional plugin to connect to outlook? That just doesnt make sense to me.
Exchange 2007 provides a Web Service interface, the WSDL is available on every exchange 2007 installation.
Since the protocol is based on an open standard, integration with exchange 2007 is easier than ever: Evolution developers only need to generate proxies for the web-services and update the application to use the new interface.