Re: SBS 2003/Exchange and seperate POP3 server - Possible?



Holz,
Thats exactly what I want to do, I had decided to stay with windows
platforms (I'm Linux challenged) so I found hmailserver which is open source
and claimed to do everything I could want and then some.

Mostly I'm concerned about having two server co-exist especially with the
SBS server.

Have you done anything like this before? I'm just trying to identify where
my "Gotchas" are before I start down this road.....

--
Sean


"Holz" wrote:

On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:25:01 -0800
Sean <Sean@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm looking for some advice on setting up an hmailserver alongside my
SBS 2003 standard box. My client and I have exhausted ourselves
trying to make exchange work the way their existing POP3 mail works
(numerous blind addresses) and so I want to build a seperate box just
to handle these "special" mail domains and let exchange handle their
normal user mail.

I want to know if anyone has done this and if so how? I'm pretty sure
it can be done but a little over my head since I'm not sure how to
split mail incoming on a single IP..... with port 25 being forwarded
to my SBS box now.

Anybody?

Thanks in Advance.

If you are open to open source look at Citadel.org. It runs on Linux
and can be installed as stand-alone or VM. It does everything that you
want.
Another option is Clarkconnect, it also does everything you want and
can fetch all your mail, put in your mailbox, allow you to log on via
web interface just as Citadel, and send from what ever address you want
without special setup.
Both solutions can work in the following manner:
For your Exchange addresses your mail comes directly to your exchange
server via an MX record, the rest are fetched by the linux machine, and
distributed (or not).
Or
All mail comes to the open source and distributed by that machine
according to rules you set. So if the recipient is a
user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx the mail is forwarded to the exchange box, and if
he is not then the mail is not forwarded and remains on the Linux box.
By the way, this can be done with many pop3 able mail server, not just
Linux, I simply like the 2 mentioned above since they have some real
nice features, all for free.
personally, I think ClarkConnect will be a better choice then Citadel
for this purpose.
I could help you more if you were in the Los Angeles area, but this is
outside the scope of this forum.

HTH

--
live, or leave & let live.
:-)


.



Relevant Pages

  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.setup)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.admin)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.design)
  • Re: Exchange 2003 and NT4 trusted domain
    ... > If you run Exchange 2003, you will need to install AD on at least on ... > use the server for Exchange. ... There would be no need to have a server at the remote ... There is a Linux box at each site ...
    (microsoft.public.exchange.connectivity)
  • Re: Microsoft to certify and support SUSE Linux !
    ... Then they will have to give it away and open source it. ... SQL Server integration looks like a weak hack. ... Postgres certainly is. ... MS-SQL Server would not be a huge market for MS on Linux; ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)