Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients

From: BC (bconneely_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: 5 Sep 2004 05:25:35 -0700

"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews@rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message news:<gnnkj01lpnnhjj5iduns8tc0kkuu8cs9a6@4ax.com>...
> bconneely@yahoo.com (BC) wrote:
>
> >"Rich Matheisen [MVP]" <richnews@rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM> wrote in message news:<j1mfj0tgur29q45e53itt0gs5rc5id90h4@4ax.com>...
> >> bconneely@yahoo.com (BC) wrote:
> >>
> >> [ snip ]
> >>
> >> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >How many times I have to tell you low tech MS toadies
> >>
> >> Low tech? MS toadies? And you still use POP3? HA!
> >>
> >Is that all you got? *Slap* *Slap*
>
> Nope. But I'm not trying to sell something, either. :)
>
> >I you want speed, reliability, and flexibility it's POP3
> >and IMAP.
>
> IMAP, sure. Flexibility and POP3? Geeze.
>
> >If you want weird, sluggish behavior and
> >incompatibility, there's MAPI, which of course is crappy
>
> And if all you want is messages then IMAP it is. Let me know when you
> can do scheduling, calendars, notes, journals, etc. with an IMAP
> client (or server). Oh, and as much as I dislike them, try public
> folder applications with IMAP.

*Slap* Already done done it using the Bynari groupware
connector. Also most of the newer email servers like
Merak have shared folders, contacts and calendaring built-
in. If you know anything about systems, IMAP rocks.

>
> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >that POP3 connectors work extremely well, expecially
> >>
> >> No they don't. At least not if you define "extremely well" as "the
> >> same as SMTP".
> >
> >By "extremely well" I mean set-it and forget-it low
> >maintenance and low cost -- which are extremely strange
> >concepts to MCSE's
>
> Hardly. I'm not a consultant, or a tech support guy. I manage the
> e-mail system for a medium sized compnay. Cost is at the forefront of
> what I do every day. But cost is more than the hardware and software
> dollars.

*Slap* Cost is what you end up paying at the end of
the year in software, hardware, time, and time lost.

And yes, it's painfully obvious you're not a consultant
ot tech support guy.

>
> >who think the all-purpose solution to
> >flaky Exchange Servers is a massively expensive -- and
> >profitable -- software and hardware upgrade to Microsoft's
> >latest and lamest.
>
> Sounds like you've got an ax to grind. I'd suggest you take it one of
> the advocacy groups.

*Slap* We were talking about maintenance and costs

>
> >*Slap*
> >
> >> >
> >> >for smaller businesses, where they provide extra
> >>
> >> The size of the business has no effect on how well they work.
> >
> >Yahoo with 52 million customers might possibly have different
> >needs from a regional ISP with 50,000 customers, which in turn
> >might have different needs from a large company with 5,000
> >employees,
>
> A "large" company would have substantially more than 5,000 employees.
> You're describing the top end of the "small" company profile. But that
> may help explain your mindset.

You get a *Slap* for general incoherency. Would you have
been happy if I rounded up to 10,000?

>
> And Yahoo (Outblaze) offers pretty much the low end of mail features,
> as does MSN, Juno, etc. The way mail is used in an enterprise is quite
> different to the way mail is used by the general public.
>

*Slap* for another disengenuous lie. Yahoo for one provides
email, calendaring, shared folders, spam and antivirus
protection, IM, as well as Palm syncing.

> >whose needs would be different from a small firm
> >with 50 employees. In all these cases, though Exchange Server
> >would not be the best choice if speed, scalability, and
> >reliability are important.
>
> Hmmm . . . reliability? I get 3-1/2 to 4-9's out of unhardened and
> unoptimized Exchange servers. And that's not subtracting the
> maintenance time.
>
> Speed? I can deliver a message of up to 100KB in less than 10 minutes
> anywhere in the company (and that covers six contenents, not all of
> which are "well connected").

No *Slap* this time -- just a big smile. A 100k message
delivered anywhere in your company in less than 10
minutes? Wow, that's, um, something.... gawd. You Exchange
toadies can be rather inadvertently amusing at times....

>
> Scalability needs some definition, and an understanding of the way the
> system is used. It's easy to put 50,000 mailboxes on one server if
> only a small percentage of the users are connected at one time, and
> the messages they send are relatively small (under 50KB). W've got
> few Exchange servers with >5,000 mailboxes on them, and the way those
> mailoxes is used is quite different to the way your parents might use
> Yahoo.
>
*Slap* for deliberate (I think) denseness. "Scalability"
just means you can easily ramp up in size, by a factor
of 10, 100, or whatever. The better email server programs
will let you start your ISP if you want.

> >
> >> >
> >> >protection against viruses and hackers, compared to
> >>
> >> Really? Wow. I didn't know that POP3 included any AV scanners. MAybe
> >> I'll go back and reread that RFC. How you're proteted from hackers by
> >> this sort of software is also a mystery. But, I'm just a low tech MS
> >> toadie, so what do *I* know? Perhaps you can tell us how this
> >> wonderful POP3 "cloak of invincibility" works?
> >
> >*Slap* Try reading the post first before responding. By having
> >the email come to a foreign mail host first, you can have it
> >scanned there first before pulling it down into your local
> >system.
>
> You still have to connect to get the mail. Go figure.

*Slap* Yeah....and? Do your own scanning or have someone
else do it for you, and...? You get another *Slap* for
pointlessness.

>
> >> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >MX pointing, especially to that sorry-ass pile of
> >>
> >> What's having a MX record got to do with viruses or hackers? Is ther
> >> an "A" record? If so, then how's the two differ?
> >
> >*Slap* See the previous response. And an extra *Slap* for
> >your disengenuousness.
>
> Ohhh, a big word!

Ohhh, and another *Slap* for thinking small.
 
>
> >> >progamming code known as Exchange Server.
> >>
> >> You won't hear me disagree that no Exchange server shoud be connected
> >> to the Internet.
> >
> >*Slap* It shouldn't even be connected to a large internal
> >network
>
> That's a personal opinion. Now tell us why.

*Slap* I already did. It's sluggish, high maintenance crap
compared to Merak, Kerio, MDaemon, VPOP3, etc., etc. MS
Exchange is the software equivalent of an Alfa Romeo with
a 4 cylnder engine.

>
> >> >There are some issues with some list server mailings
> >> >
> >> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >but mappings will take care of this. Also, you have
> >>
> >> Not if yu have al the mail delivered to a single mailbox.
> >
> >*Slap* Read the manual or help file before making a dim
> >comment like. It works. Did it. Inconvenient with a large
> >number of list server mailings, but that's about it.
>
> If you're happy with it, that's okay. How long did it take to make it
> work? How long would it take to do it for 100K mailboxes and thousands
> of mailing lists? What would be the running cost of maintaining it?

You get a double *Slap* for not having a clue about
what you're talking about. The routing configuration
aspects are trivial compared to even regular Exchange
maintenance.

>
> >> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >the option of pulling down from now widely available
> >> >
> >> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >email hosting sites with antispam & antivirus checking
> >> >
> >> >*Slap*
> >> >
> >> >done at their end. Also, if this wasn't enough, some
> >>
> >> Which is, of course, free -- right? Gotta keep those small businesses
> >> in mind. But, there are better ways of doing this than some kludge of
> >> POP3-to-SMTP.
> >
> >*Slap* Exchange Server *is* the kludge. The TCO of that easily
> >pays for having email being scanned externally.
>
> Have you ever done a TCO analysis yourself? Or do you just read stuff
> in magazines?

*Slap* Actually, yes. A good rule of thumb is to take any
Exchange System, whatever size, add up what you paid for
the software, hardware, staff and consultant time related
to it over a 3 yr cycle, divide by 10, and then subtract
the difference from the Exchange costs -- that's how much
the average company minimally pisses away by running an
Exchange system.

It's funny how you can't find this info anywhere in any
of Microsoft's white papers.
   
>
> For a small number of mailboxes using a service like Postini (not the
> best for outbound mail, BTW) is inexpensive. But it's a constant cost,
> month after month.

*Slap* As opposed to having consultants come in
regularly to deal with the virus and spyware issues
caused by chronically clueless users and malfunctioning
anti-virus software. (If you use McAfee, give yourself
a couple of extra "Slaps* -- that's so crappy that you
would think Microsoft made it...)

>
> [ snip ]
>
> >> >*Kick ****
> >> >
> >> >Now go 'way and download some critical update or such.
> >>
> >> I'd rather go fiddle with Ironmail and Postfix, thanks.
> >
> >"Fiddle" is the right word, no doubt. I'll skip a slap for
> >your inadvertent honesty.
>
> I suppose I could have used another word. But you'd take wrong no
> matter what i said.

And with that, you get a *Slap* for *Slap's* sake.

-BC

Loading