Seriously, it pulled that nonsense when I was adjusting the clock in the system tray, an action which affects precisely nothing.
Changing the time can cause all sorts of issues. It can be used to falsify audit logs & event logs. It can be used to attempt to bypass licensing. It can be used to break kerberos and force the machine to fall back to locally cached credentials.
Changing the time is a system administrator task, not an end-user one. It's arguable that changing the time-zone could be appropriate for end-users, but not the date/time itself.
I can move the sudo window to the side or ignore it for a moment if I'm in the middle of something else. No problem. UAC doesn't allow this -- it completely darkens the screen and stops accepting any input whatsoever, to anything, until you type in the stupid password.
That functionality is called secure desktop. It's point is to make it impossible for malware to just click the 'Allow' button themselves.
If you dont like Secure Desktop, then turn it off.
Sudo passwords come up rarely, only when they make sense, require some level of "should I really do this?" pausing, and can be ignored until you're ready to address it.
UAC prompts come up precisely and exactly when they make sense. It happens when something is trying to access what they dont have rights to. What causes too much UAC prompts is bad 1st part or 3rd party software. There's no magic in UAC to cause this. The logic here is quite straightforward. If Weather bug tries to write to windows\system32, then it SHOULD trigger UAC. Your problem is with weather bug then, not UAC.
In a sysadmin point of view, it's useless too, look : am I admin ? does the computer know I'm the boss ? If it knows I know what I'm doing, why is it asking "are you sure you want to do what you want to do ?", and if it does not know if I'm the boss on the computer, why can I do the shit I want just by clicking "yes" ?
Thats why IT admins in a business environment turn of admin approval for admin accounts, but still leave UAC running with prompt for creditals elevation.
Your attempt at a point is an example of talking about something you dont really understand.
The 'allow or deny' business is only intended for home users.
IT professionals configure UAC to perform exactly as they desire.
Some applications just don't work through Runas, it really screws up your environment, and using it just isn't easy.
Bull. There is zero difference between using RunAs to run a process as user JoeAdmin and launching that same process when logged into the desktop as JoeAdmin. There is no magical flag that an app can use to detect whether its run using runas or not.
It sounds to me like you have no direct experience with it, but listened to second hand stories by low-end or incompetent admins who didnt really understand how the system worked, and so wasted their time bitching.
Having said that, I'm a little hazy on exactly what IronPerl would be, if it existed, and what actual problem it would solve that standard Perl doesn't, other than filling out one more space on somebody's Buzzword Bingo card. Maybe someone who knows more about.NET could elaborate on this?
Access to the.NET libraries and components built in.NET that are not COM-enabled.
Basically the same reason you'd want IronPython or IronRuby.
It's a choice that the exchange admins made when they set up Exchange 2007. If they made that choice in error, then its a simple 3-step fix.
So Office 2003 works just fine... there is just an option not to run Public Folders if you are sure you wont ever need to support anything but Outlook 2007.
Note though that this would only give you mail services.
You wouldnt get any of the other exchange goodness, like calendars, tasks, address books, contacts, public folders, resource scheduling, delegated permissions, etc etc etc.
Way to make up a completely fictional situation and then base your argument on that.
I'll give you a clue: Exchange does single instance store of attachments.
So if you send an attachment to 1000 people on the box, it stores ONE copy of that attachment.
Now if you send 1000 copies to external email addresses, then yeah, you'll consume alot of spool and bandwidth, but thats true of all mail servers in the same scenario.
That was one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen.
How exactly can PostFix be a 'backend' for exchange? What you mean (snidely) is that dont use Exchange for mail, use PostFix. But what about the people who want the million and one things that Exchange offers, but Postfix doesnt? Like your boss? Scheduling, resources, public calendars, delegation, etc etc etc.
So yeah, screw your users for your personal ideology. Nice work.
Exim, postfix, qmail, sendmail, etc are capable of operating when you have low disk space because you can give it more diskspace by either moving parts of your mail server into a cluster (exchange does not do this in a way that is easy or transparent). or you can use an inexpensive NAS to provide the additional spool space without horrible performance issues.
You can do all of this with Exchange too. You can move any arbitrary number of users from a mailstore on the DAS to one mounted on a SAN. Or you can move it to a completely different device. Or you can use clustering. Or you can mount a bunch of iSCSI targets and mount different stores on each of those.
And your comment about the spool space really blows me away. Why would you use the same storage for spool space as you do for mail storage? On a large installation, why would you even have these on the same server?
With exchange, you can separate out every single role in the organization (MTAs, Webmail, MAPI, routing, mailstore, etc. And you can scale each of these levels as big or as small as you want.
Exchange really can't use NAS in a useful way, you are stuck jumping directly to SAN.
Now thats just not true at all.
You can use as many mailbox stores as you want, and keep a large or small number of users on each, as you desire.
You can use DAS, NAS over iSCSI, or SAN.
The only real limitation here is that Exchange requires block level access to the storage device.
Any mail admin that lets people send 2GB attachment is a bad admin, or is working under a highly unusual and rare business case that makes it compelling.
There a many different ways to share 2GB or greater files, nearly all of them better than emailing them.
People want lots of things, it doesnt mean its the right thing to do to let them do it with your systems.
What does your post have to do with anything? 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.
Wow, its this kind of post that really illustrates the problem.
Slashdot is full of people mouthing off on how bad Exchange is, but by the content of their posts, they clearly dont have a clue how it even works.
Ever try to recover a corrupted.PST file over 2GB? I know it isn't supposed to happen but it has, and it's not pretty. Tell your CEO that some time.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Neither Outlook in an Exchange environment, nor Exchange use PST files. Your 'point' has nothing to do with anything that we're talking about.
If what you mean is that if Outlook loses its local copy of the mailstore data, then you know what you do? You blow away the local outlook profile, and let it re-sync with exchange. Zero loss, zero pain, other than a few minutes wait.
Every try to migrate off of Exchange? I can understand not caring, but this is something I would not expect to find in the seventh ring of Hell. Just too nasty.
Yes. There are several approaches you can take.
The first and easiest is to use whatever import/export/migration tool comes with the product you're migrating to.
Another alternative that works fine for small installations is to have each user account copy their mail, calendar, etc into a PST. Nearly every competing product can import from PST's.
Finally, an alternative for large installs is to just get a coder or two together and write some scripts to trawl through the exchange store and export into the desired target format. The native storage format may not be documented, but the tools to get to it fully are, and are quite straightforward to use. I've done some work in this area in the past, and it would probably take a couple days to write a one-off solution for an average coder.
Ever try to juggle backups, antivirus, patch management, and users saving EVERYTHING FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, including the 1GB Photoshop file attached to an email? And then explaining to the CEO's wife why she can't reliably use Outlook as a backup device? Well, actually, I wonder what email system could do that... any that I could hope would are gone now.
I dont know why you call it 'juggle'ing, its just system administration, no different than anything else. You do backups, A/V, and patch management on every system, so its a moot point here.
If you are running out of space, then either invest the money to grow the storage, or force users to clean up old files & attachments, or implement quotas. Your choice. All very straightforward.
If you think somehow Exchange is causing you to run out of space when you shouldnt be, then you have a systems management problem.
And if you think users saving everything for the last seven years including large attachments is exclusively an exchange problem, then you obviously havent done any work in this space.
And why would you purposely configure the Exchange server to ALLOW a user to retrieve, send, or save a 1GB attachment? It sure as heck doesnt ship that way.
Exchange is pretty functional now, save for some serious deficiencies in the Outlook client (.PST files are just plain wrong),
Again, this sort of statement shows that you either have never actually done said system management of Exchange, or that you really really didnt know what you were doing.
There are only a very small number of reasons why business users would be using PST files for business purposes while on an Exchange box.
None of them have anything to do with features or limitations inherent to exchange, but have to do with company policy or spending decisions. For example, if you think that your management not willing to spend money to expand exchange storage and backup, and thereby forcing you to implement quotas which push people to storage archive email in PSTs (which dont get backed up), is an Exchange problem, then you have some serious
I dont think you know very much about Exchange, and are just making things up.
How many of us get annoying emails when we have more than a few hundred MB of messages in our mailbox?
What does this possibly have to do with Exchange? The mailserver admins can set quotas on your IMAP box too. Dont confuse cheap-ass company policy with inherent quality of the system.
Did you know that Exchange performs like crap when you run low on local disk space to keep the data.
Correction. Due to the way that Exchange allocates file space, it doesnt deal with fragmentation very well as you're approaching very close to a full drive. And this only even applies to direct attached storage, and not iSCI or SAN mounts.
The solution to this is simple, dont run down under a couple of gigabytes of free space. It would be stupid to do so anyway, as a couple of gigabytes can fill up in minutes in a busy mail server. If you're letting the drives holding your mail data files get that low, then you're doing a bad job administering the box(es).
CIFS won't save your ass either, you end up having to go to using SAN (which looks like local disk from Exchange's point of view).
This is a non-sequitur. Exchange requires block-based access to the file system, so no one on earth who understood the underlying technologies would even bring up CIFS as a solution. You want it fast, use a fiber-channel (or similar) SAN mount. You want it cheap, use iSCSI against a NAS on a fast, low-latency switched network (preferably a dedicated one).
Some bullshit scripts with postfix, exim or qmail can spool and forward terabytes of email an hour.
Up above you were talking about storage, now you're talking about store and forward?
How does comparing Exchange's data-storage abilities to another products store-and-forward abilities even make sense?
If you want to run Exchange on a non-domain box as an MTA for that purpose, then do so. Most folks just use an open source solution, due to price. You're not buying Exchange for its earth-shattering MTA abilities.
With the added advantage that you can cluster your IMAP services out to deal with the space and load in an incredibly simple yet scalable manner.
You can do that with Exchange as well. In fact, thats the suggested implementation configuration.
You can use a SAN, but you can just as easily setup a new box for every 100 employees and still have a very usable system.
You can do both of these with exchange too, the latter by just adding a new mailbox store server for every X number of accounts.
The inferior modes are just there so they can sucker companies into buying it at the low end, when in a short while the company will have to invest an exponential rate of money to scale the system.
Again, I dont think you have the requisite experience to be talking about this.
There are (probably) millions of small businesses running SBS, which includes Exchange and a whole AD setup, for $700. These sizes of Exchange boxes tend to run flawlessly, and 'just work' and require almost zero maintenance. My business manages a number of them.
The TCO of Exchange is very high.
By what measure? My guess is that you're only measuring the cost side based on your machine-room-operator experience. How do you value the very nice features and experience this gives for busy corporate end-users who literally cant live without all the scheduling, mail, collaboration, online/offline, sharing, public folders, etc.
You can compare TCO against other products who do pieces of what a full Exchange/Outlook stack do, but there's nothing out there that really works as well for the end-user, so you're not comparing apples to apples. I know, I've looked and demo'd several of them.
Here's a big hint, if all you need is webmail and the occasional team meeting, then you're not the target market of Exchange, and you're probably not in a good position to opine on the cost/benefits tradeoffs of it.
And even that version has tons of things you dont get.
It's crippleware, and fairly pointless crippleware too. What is the use of an open-source email server that is only open-source and free for = 3 users?
Its only scary from a security perspective if you arent fully aware of how it works.
First, you can delegate precisely and only what you want. Want them to be able to look at your calendar, but not act on it? Easy. Want them to be able to manage your calendar, and respond to request, without having to know your login/password? Easy to setup. Want them to only know if you are busy/free at that time? Easy.
The example you give (sending emails AS someone else) is something rarely used from a person-to-person basis, and there's no reason you HAVE to set anything up that way. It doesnt come configured that way by default, in any circumstances.
But there are many valid use-cases to sending emails as someone else.
For example, you have a general contact list for payroll, call it payroll@yourdomain.com. You want emails sent to that name to go to 5 people, and whomever responds, responds as payroll@yourdomain.com. In other words, the email shows payroll@ as the FROM address, and not the actual person.
From the flip side, you only give a real person the ability to 'send as' another person when you really really want to, and then the security/logging implications are well understood.
If you're worried about repudiation issues from your assistant answering emails or appointments for you, then dont get that person those privs. If you need to, but still want to double-check on them, then have your Exchange admin copy all messages to/from that person to a special box that only you have access to read. Or give you read access to that person's mailbox.
In reality, the thing you describe as being worried about isnt a real worry in the real world. And you're never forced into that situation, its only if you want it, and then you are understanding of the costs/benefits.
And in a real pinch, the Exchange admin can log the snot out of everything, and you can trace every freaking hop of every freaking message within the exchange organization, if you want, to see exactly who did what.
Exchange is quite fantastically powerful in its security administration, rules, filters, etc etc. It's also a bit complicated as a result.
I dont know of any browsers that do that (for form content or plugin content in a flex form, for example).
Interestingly enough, NoScript seems to do that, to some extent.
For example, go to a form, type in the whole damn thing, then try to submit it and realize that its a pure-javascript form (I know, I hate it too). So then I have to do a temporary domain add and re-enter the form.
It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, when NoScript does this and refreshes the page, it also re-populates your form data. I was very very pleasantly surprised the first time I noticed this, as I was dreading re-entering all the information.
Re:Non-Tech Percent of Web Traffic from Chrome
on
Google Chrome, Day 2
·
· Score: 1
I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you're intending to respond to me, please quote what you're referring to, as your sentence makes no sense to me, and seems to have no connection to anything I said.
Re:These articles still don't answer my question
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 1
They might, and I hope they do. At least I hope they take some ideas from Chrome and use it to make FF a better product.
I worry though that the FF folks have decided that the one-process-for-everything is their official way and wont change it.
I have never looked at the code, but its possible that the product is written in such a way that moving it towards more of a multi-process design would be a massive job.
Of course the browser instance wasnt running the whole time. But when you shut down and restart the browser, you can configure it to restart where it left off. I've been running Firefox (through tabmixplus) and opera that way for years.
2- We disagree. webstandards.org....w3c... the mind boggles here and it's like saying we're looking at a symphonic rose, but we're all seeing something else. Indeed, the rods and cones fire the same signals to the brain, as does the impacted tympani and drum. Fie.
Neither webstandards.org nor w3c has reference implementations or conformance standards. I'm not sure why you would suggest they do.
Acid2/Acid3, which you may be thinking of, are NOT official conformance tests. They have nothing to do with w3c or the standards. They are just 'some guys' interpretation of how browsers should interpret some subset of the standards.
Conformance with w3c specs, in theory, can happen without conforming to acid2/acid3, and the acid tests dont cover all w3c features.
w3c has _validators_ to make sure that your _syntax_ is correct. They tell you nothing about whether a browser's implementation of a standard meets conformance, because there is no conformance, and no reference implementation.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, it pulled that nonsense when I was adjusting the clock in the system tray, an action which affects precisely nothing.
Changing the time can cause all sorts of issues. It can be used to falsify audit logs & event logs. It can be used to attempt to bypass licensing. It can be used to break kerberos and force the machine to fall back to locally cached credentials.
Changing the time is a system administrator task, not an end-user one. It's arguable that changing the time-zone could be appropriate for end-users, but not the date/time itself.
I can move the sudo window to the side or ignore it for a moment if I'm in the middle of something else. No problem. UAC doesn't allow this -- it completely darkens the screen and stops accepting any input whatsoever, to anything, until you type in the stupid password.
That functionality is called secure desktop. It's point is to make it impossible for malware to just click the 'Allow' button themselves.
If you dont like Secure Desktop, then turn it off.
Sudo passwords come up rarely, only when they make sense, require some level of "should I really do this?" pausing, and can be ignored until you're ready to address it.
UAC prompts come up precisely and exactly when they make sense. It happens when something is trying to access what they dont have rights to. What causes too much UAC prompts is bad 1st part or 3rd party software. There's no magic in UAC to cause this. The logic here is quite straightforward. If Weather bug tries to write to windows\system32, then it SHOULD trigger UAC. Your problem is with weather bug then, not UAC.
In a sysadmin point of view, it's useless too, look : am I admin ? does the computer know I'm the boss ? If it knows I know what I'm doing, why is it asking "are you sure you want to do what you want to do ?", and if it does not know if I'm the boss on the computer, why can I do the shit I want just by clicking "yes" ?
Thats why IT admins in a business environment turn of admin approval for admin accounts, but still leave UAC running with prompt for creditals elevation.
Your attempt at a point is an example of talking about something you dont really understand.
The 'allow or deny' business is only intended for home users.
IT professionals configure UAC to perform exactly as they desire.
Some applications just don't work through Runas, it really screws up your environment, and using it just isn't easy.
Bull. There is zero difference between using RunAs to run a process as user JoeAdmin and launching that same process when logged into the desktop as JoeAdmin. There is no magical flag that an app can use to detect whether its run using runas or not.
It sounds to me like you have no direct experience with it, but listened to second hand stories by low-end or incompetent admins who didnt really understand how the system worked, and so wasted their time bitching.
Having said that, I'm a little hazy on exactly what IronPerl would be, if it existed, and what actual problem it would solve that standard Perl doesn't, other than filling out one more space on somebody's Buzzword Bingo card. Maybe someone who knows more about .NET could elaborate on this?
Access to the .NET libraries and components built in .NET that are not COM-enabled.
Basically the same reason you'd want IronPython or IronRuby.
Did you actually read the link you posted?
It's a choice that the exchange admins made when they set up Exchange 2007. If they made that choice in error, then its a simple 3-step fix.
So Office 2003 works just fine ... there is just an option not to run Public Folders if you are sure you wont ever need to support anything but Outlook 2007.
Once the services are enabled, Exchange 2007 is as good a POP/IMAP server as anything out there.
I've got to strongly disagree with this, at least with Exchange 2003 and prior.
The IMAP server was fairly buggy, and would cause most mail clients to lock up or get stuck, or unable to retrieve email without restarting the app.
Particularly with large numbers of messages in a folder, it often would just fall over.
Note though that this would only give you mail services.
You wouldnt get any of the other exchange goodness, like calendars, tasks, address books, contacts, public folders, resource scheduling, delegated permissions, etc etc etc.
The MAPI stuff and other advanced features are plugins that are not GPL.
Dude, its NOT just email.
Thats the whole freaking point.
It's a whole lot more than just email, which is why no one has really done a compelling competitor for it.
If you dont understand that, you shouldnt be participating in this discussion.
And google runs their gmail and calendaring across tens of thousands of servers, across many data centers, that cost literally billions of dollars.
Way to make up a completely fictional situation and then base your argument on that.
I'll give you a clue: Exchange does single instance store of attachments.
So if you send an attachment to 1000 people on the box, it stores ONE copy of that attachment.
Now if you send 1000 copies to external email addresses, then yeah, you'll consume alot of spool and bandwidth, but thats true of all mail servers in the same scenario.
Wow.
That was one of the most ignorant comments I've ever seen.
How exactly can PostFix be a 'backend' for exchange? What you mean (snidely) is that dont use Exchange for mail, use PostFix. But what about the people who want the million and one things that Exchange offers, but Postfix doesnt? Like your boss? Scheduling, resources, public calendars, delegation, etc etc etc.
So yeah, screw your users for your personal ideology. Nice work.
The set of jobs that fall under 'IT Pros' include IT Analysts and IT Management.
Exim, postfix, qmail, sendmail, etc are capable of operating when you have low disk space because you can give it more diskspace by either moving parts of your mail server into a cluster (exchange does not do this in a way that is easy or transparent). or you can use an inexpensive NAS to provide the additional spool space without horrible performance issues.
You can do all of this with Exchange too. You can move any arbitrary number of users from a mailstore on the DAS to one mounted on a SAN. Or you can move it to a completely different device. Or you can use clustering. Or you can mount a bunch of iSCSI targets and mount different stores on each of those.
And your comment about the spool space really blows me away. Why would you use the same storage for spool space as you do for mail storage? On a large installation, why would you even have these on the same server?
With exchange, you can separate out every single role in the organization (MTAs, Webmail, MAPI, routing, mailstore, etc. And you can scale each of these levels as big or as small as you want.
Exchange really can't use NAS in a useful way, you are stuck jumping directly to SAN.
Now thats just not true at all.
You can use as many mailbox stores as you want, and keep a large or small number of users on each, as you desire.
You can use DAS, NAS over iSCSI, or SAN.
The only real limitation here is that Exchange requires block level access to the storage device.
Any mail admin that lets people send 2GB attachment is a bad admin, or is working under a highly unusual and rare business case that makes it compelling.
There a many different ways to share 2GB or greater files, nearly all of them better than emailing them.
People want lots of things, it doesnt mean its the right thing to do to let them do it with your systems.
What does your post have to do with anything? 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.
Wow, its this kind of post that really illustrates the problem.
Slashdot is full of people mouthing off on how bad Exchange is, but by the content of their posts, they clearly dont have a clue how it even works.
Ever try to recover a corrupted .PST file over 2GB? I know it isn't supposed to happen but it has, and it's not pretty. Tell your CEO that some time.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Neither Outlook in an Exchange environment, nor Exchange use PST files. Your 'point' has nothing to do with anything that we're talking about.
If what you mean is that if Outlook loses its local copy of the mailstore data, then you know what you do? You blow away the local outlook profile, and let it re-sync with exchange. Zero loss, zero pain, other than a few minutes wait.
Every try to migrate off of Exchange? I can understand not caring, but this is something I would not expect to find in the seventh ring of Hell. Just too nasty.
Yes. There are several approaches you can take.
The first and easiest is to use whatever import/export/migration tool comes with the product you're migrating to.
Another alternative that works fine for small installations is to have each user account copy their mail, calendar, etc into a PST. Nearly every competing product can import from PST's.
Finally, an alternative for large installs is to just get a coder or two together and write some scripts to trawl through the exchange store and export into the desired target format. The native storage format may not be documented, but the tools to get to it fully are, and are quite straightforward to use. I've done some work in this area in the past, and it would probably take a couple days to write a one-off solution for an average coder.
Ever try to juggle backups, antivirus, patch management, and users saving EVERYTHING FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, including the 1GB Photoshop file attached to an email? And then explaining to the CEO's wife why she can't reliably use Outlook as a backup device? Well, actually, I wonder what email system could do that... any that I could hope would are gone now.
I dont know why you call it 'juggle'ing, its just system administration, no different than anything else. You do backups, A/V, and patch management on every system, so its a moot point here.
If you are running out of space, then either invest the money to grow the storage, or force users to clean up old files & attachments, or implement quotas. Your choice. All very straightforward.
If you think somehow Exchange is causing you to run out of space when you shouldnt be, then you have a systems management problem.
And if you think users saving everything for the last seven years including large attachments is exclusively an exchange problem, then you obviously havent done any work in this space.
And why would you purposely configure the Exchange server to ALLOW a user to retrieve, send, or save a 1GB attachment? It sure as heck doesnt ship that way.
Exchange is pretty functional now, save for some serious deficiencies in the Outlook client (.PST files are just plain wrong),
Again, this sort of statement shows that you either have never actually done said system management of Exchange, or that you really really didnt know what you were doing.
There are only a very small number of reasons why business users would be using PST files for business purposes while on an Exchange box.
None of them have anything to do with features or limitations inherent to exchange, but have to do with company policy or spending decisions. For example, if you think that your management not willing to spend money to expand exchange storage and backup, and thereby forcing you to implement quotas which push people to storage archive email in PSTs (which dont get backed up), is an Exchange problem, then you have some serious
I dont think you know very much about Exchange, and are just making things up.
How many of us get annoying emails when we have more than a few hundred MB of messages in our mailbox?
What does this possibly have to do with Exchange? The mailserver admins can set quotas on your IMAP box too. Dont confuse cheap-ass company policy with inherent quality of the system.
Did you know that Exchange performs like crap when you run low on local disk space to keep the data.
Correction. Due to the way that Exchange allocates file space, it doesnt deal with fragmentation very well as you're approaching very close to a full drive. And this only even applies to direct attached storage, and not iSCI or SAN mounts.
The solution to this is simple, dont run down under a couple of gigabytes of free space. It would be stupid to do so anyway, as a couple of gigabytes can fill up in minutes in a busy mail server. If you're letting the drives holding your mail data files get that low, then you're doing a bad job administering the box(es).
CIFS won't save your ass either, you end up having to go to using SAN (which looks like local disk from Exchange's point of view).
This is a non-sequitur. Exchange requires block-based access to the file system, so no one on earth who understood the underlying technologies would even bring up CIFS as a solution. You want it fast, use a fiber-channel (or similar) SAN mount. You want it cheap, use iSCSI against a NAS on a fast, low-latency switched network (preferably a dedicated one).
Some bullshit scripts with postfix, exim or qmail can spool and forward terabytes of email an hour.
Up above you were talking about storage, now you're talking about store and forward?
How does comparing Exchange's data-storage abilities to another products store-and-forward abilities even make sense?
If you want to run Exchange on a non-domain box as an MTA for that purpose, then do so. Most folks just use an open source solution, due to price. You're not buying Exchange for its earth-shattering MTA abilities.
With the added advantage that you can cluster your IMAP services out to deal with the space and load in an incredibly simple yet scalable manner.
You can do that with Exchange as well. In fact, thats the suggested implementation configuration.
You can use a SAN, but you can just as easily setup a new box for every 100 employees and still have a very usable system.
You can do both of these with exchange too, the latter by just adding a new mailbox store server for every X number of accounts.
The inferior modes are just there so they can sucker companies into buying it at the low end, when in a short while the company will have to invest an exponential rate of money to scale the system.
Again, I dont think you have the requisite experience to be talking about this.
There are (probably) millions of small businesses running SBS, which includes Exchange and a whole AD setup, for $700. These sizes of Exchange boxes tend to run flawlessly, and 'just work' and require almost zero maintenance. My business manages a number of them.
The TCO of Exchange is very high.
By what measure? My guess is that you're only measuring the cost side based on your machine-room-operator experience. How do you value the very nice features and experience this gives for busy corporate end-users who literally cant live without all the scheduling, mail, collaboration, online/offline, sharing, public folders, etc.
You can compare TCO against other products who do pieces of what a full Exchange/Outlook stack do, but there's nothing out there that really works as well for the end-user, so you're not comparing apples to apples. I know, I've looked and demo'd several of them.
Here's a big hint, if all you need is webmail and the occasional team meeting, then you're not the target market of Exchange, and you're probably not in a good position to opine on the cost/benefits tradeoffs of it.
Its only free for 3 users or less.
And even that version has tons of things you dont get.
It's crippleware, and fairly pointless crippleware too. What is the use of an open-source email server that is only open-source and free for = 3 users?
None of the things you linked are part of either Exchange or Outlook.
They are COM plugins to Outlook and Exchange to add extra functionality.
Just because Exchange and Outlook expose COM interfaces doesnt mean either of them are written in VB.
Its only scary from a security perspective if you arent fully aware of how it works.
First, you can delegate precisely and only what you want. Want them to be able to look at your calendar, but not act on it? Easy. Want them to be able to manage your calendar, and respond to request, without having to know your login/password? Easy to setup. Want them to only know if you are busy/free at that time? Easy.
The example you give (sending emails AS someone else) is something rarely used from a person-to-person basis, and there's no reason you HAVE to set anything up that way. It doesnt come configured that way by default, in any circumstances.
But there are many valid use-cases to sending emails as someone else.
For example, you have a general contact list for payroll, call it payroll@yourdomain.com. You want emails sent to that name to go to 5 people, and whomever responds, responds as payroll@yourdomain.com. In other words, the email shows payroll@ as the FROM address, and not the actual person.
From the flip side, you only give a real person the ability to 'send as' another person when you really really want to, and then the security/logging implications are well understood.
If you're worried about repudiation issues from your assistant answering emails or appointments for you, then dont get that person those privs. If you need to, but still want to double-check on them, then have your Exchange admin copy all messages to/from that person to a special box that only you have access to read. Or give you read access to that person's mailbox.
In reality, the thing you describe as being worried about isnt a real worry in the real world. And you're never forced into that situation, its only if you want it, and then you are understanding of the costs/benefits.
And in a real pinch, the Exchange admin can log the snot out of everything, and you can trace every freaking hop of every freaking message within the exchange organization, if you want, to see exactly who did what.
Exchange is quite fantastically powerful in its security administration, rules, filters, etc etc. It's also a bit complicated as a result.
Ahh, that makes sense.
I dont know of any browsers that do that (for form content or plugin content in a flex form, for example).
Interestingly enough, NoScript seems to do that, to some extent.
For example, go to a form, type in the whole damn thing, then try to submit it and realize that its a pure-javascript form (I know, I hate it too). So then I have to do a temporary domain add and re-enter the form.
It seems to me that the vast majority of the time, when NoScript does this and refreshes the page, it also re-populates your form data. I was very very pleasantly surprised the first time I noticed this, as I was dreading re-entering all the information.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you're intending to respond to me, please quote what you're referring to, as your sentence makes no sense to me, and seems to have no connection to anything I said.
They might, and I hope they do. At least I hope they take some ideas from Chrome and use it to make FF a better product.
I worry though that the FF folks have decided that the one-process-for-everything is their official way and wont change it.
I have never looked at the code, but its possible that the product is written in such a way that moving it towards more of a multi-process design would be a massive job.
Of course the browser instance wasnt running the whole time. But when you shut down and restart the browser, you can configure it to restart where it left off. I've been running Firefox (through tabmixplus) and opera that way for years.
2- We disagree. webstandards.org....w3c... the mind boggles here and it's like saying we're looking at a symphonic rose, but we're all seeing something else. Indeed, the rods and cones fire the same signals to the brain, as does the impacted tympani and drum. Fie.
Neither webstandards.org nor w3c has reference implementations or conformance standards. I'm not sure why you would suggest they do.
Acid2/Acid3, which you may be thinking of, are NOT official conformance tests. They have nothing to do with w3c or the standards. They are just 'some guys' interpretation of how browsers should interpret some subset of the standards.
Conformance with w3c specs, in theory, can happen without conforming to acid2/acid3, and the acid tests dont cover all w3c features.
w3c has _validators_ to make sure that your _syntax_ is correct. They tell you nothing about whether a browser's implementation of a standard meets conformance, because there is no conformance, and no reference implementation.