Yeah but I don't think Google will say:
Because 2000 won't be supported much longer
Because when you go down the security vuln/patch list 2000 can be nailed
from anon connections and more often than not 2003 has to be nailed from
authenticated connections.
Because you want to stay with the "community" knowledge and the sweet
spot is, I would argue 2003.
IMHO 2000 is just not good enough from a security standpoint.
Exchange 2003 sp2 has mobility features that 2k never even thought of
Robert Rutherford wrote:
Hi,
I suggest you google this type of request before posting… loads of
resource around …
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/816888
Thanks,
Rob
Robert Rutherford
QuoStar Solutions Limited
T: +44 (0) 8456 440 331
F: +44 (0) 8456 440 332
M: +44 (0) 7974 249 494
E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
W: www.quostar.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Ajay Kumar
*Sent:* 30 October 2006 13:36
*To:* ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
*Subject:* [ActiveDir] Why we go for exchange 2003 server
Hi,
Can any one pls tell me why I should implement exchange 2003
**enterprise** server instead of 2000 **enterprise** server In my
organization.
Becoz Exchange 2000 having **Messenging serivces** but 2003 doesn't have.
Actually My main intention is why I go for 2003 exchagne server.
Pls suggest me.
Regards,
Ajay pardeshi
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/
