Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients
From: Rich Matheisen [MVP] (richnews_at_rmcons.com.NOSPAM.COM)
Date: 09/05/04
- Next message: nyugati: "Exchange dump files? Where?"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Help! Being Used As A Relay"
- In reply to: BC: "Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients"
- Next in thread: BC: "Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients"
- Reply: BC: "Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 19:31:29 -0400
bconneely@yahoo.com (BC) wrote:
[ snip ]
>*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.
Then stop pushing POP3 as a replacement for SMTP.
>>
>> >*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.
No, cost is what I wind up paying for amortized hardware costs,
software licenses, fully burdened employee costs, support (if I need
it), electricity, air conditioning, rack space, etc.
As I asked . . . have you ever done a TCO study? The answer is,
without question, no. Since you haven't done any, stop acting as if
you have.
>And yes, it's painfully obvious you're not a consultant
>ot tech support guy.
And it's pretty obvious that you don't understand what you're talking
about. What's obvious is that you've decided, without any
substantiated fact, that your way is the only way.
>> >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
Let's hear some facts, then. Until then it's just opinion and it
belongs in some other newsgroup.
>> >*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?
Round up, if you like. But let's hear, or see, some substance to your
argument.
>> 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.
What's IM got to do with this? I still say that they offer low-end
services. AV isn't, BTW, a service, it's a necessity, as is the spam
stuff they run (SpamAssassin).
>> >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....
And how fast can YOU deliver a message that large over low speed
links? Or do you work only on unoccupied, clear channel connections?
SMTP is SMTP, no matter whose you use. How fast the data moves, and
through how may servers it travels is the limiting factor, not whether
I use Exchange or Postfix (or any other SMTP server). But, I suppose
your single server setup is your only basis for this argument?
>> 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.
Then Exchange isn't what you want to use if bring an ISP is your goal.
But who's being disingenuous now? From POP-to-SMTP connectors to
running an ISP -- that's quie a stretch.
>> >> >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.
NO, you do. Pointless? Protection from hackers is more than just
e-mail. Connect to the internet, or to your own ISP, and you're
exposed. Let the ISP do your firewall stuff? Not me, thanks. maybe
you, though, from the sound of it.
>> >> >*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.
I'm wounded. I usually have to think globally, but I let you shrink my
scope. Sorry.
>> >> >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.
Based on what? Facts, not opinions, please.
>> >> >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.
Regular Exchange maintenance? I don't do any. It's becoming obvious
that you've acquired all you opinions (not facts) from others, not
personal experience.
>> >> >*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.
That would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
>It's funny how you can't find this info anywhere in any
>of Microsoft's white papers.
Uh-huh. Right. No TCO stuff on *their* site.
>>
>> 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...)
We don't use it. You can deduct a couple of slaps.
[ snip ]
>> 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.
And you desrve a couple dozen of your owh slaps for taking this thread
so far from it's original assertation that POP3-to-SMTP is effective
and error free.
I guess I forgot a lesson I learned some time ago: don't feed the
trolls. If ever there was a troll you are it.
See ya.
-- Rich Matheisen MCSE+I, Exchange MVP MS Exchange FAQ at http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
- Next message: nyugati: "Exchange dump files? Where?"
- Previous message: anonymous_at_discussions.microsoft.com: "Re: Help! Being Used As A Relay"
- In reply to: BC: "Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients"
- Next in thread: BC: "Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients"
- Reply: BC: "Re: POP3 Connector undisclosed recipients"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
