Main things I'm seeing with IMail/Declude on 2003 are 1. Messages that get corrupted by putting the headers in the body during processing by Declude (1.82), and then a new set gets put in halfway through the process. The message ends up with half of the tests displayed in the body and the other half in the headers. Total message weight ends up only according to what is in the header. This means messages don't get held that should have, or other messages don't go through from negative weighting like they should.
2. Declude IPBypass is not working on 2003 for some reason. I didn't have time to investigate fully, so I implemented a workaround. Note that this is the same hardware, same software installations and configs, and same network environment. The only thing different is a reload of OS and reinstall of all software and porting of configs. Totally agree with 2003 security, though I had out 2000 servers well secured. And agree that 2000 being around longer means more stable. I was implying that. I think the thing I enjoyed most was not spending hours installing patches with 2003. Saved probably 4 hours per machine in the conversion. Darin. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Darrell ([EMAIL PROTECTED])" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <declude.junkmail@declude.com> Sent: Saturday, September 16, 2006 1:51 PM Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] More info on Imail Webmail Problem >>All of my servers are 2003, but I have had seen some small stability >>issues >>with 2003 where I didn't with fully patched 2000. Also, I'm see >>10-20% >>higher average CPU on 2003 with all other software the same. I agree that I have also seen a CPU jump with 2003 - but I suspect its partly attributed to things like DEP etc. >>I'm also seeing issues with IMail and Declude on 2003 that I did not see >>at all >>on 2000. This I have not ran into yet myself. >>I agree that it's more secure by default (though I had locked 2000 down >>just >>as tightly), and that 2003 should be the choice over 2000, but >>there's no >>question in my mind that it is more bloated and not as >>stable. While 2003 is a great jump out of the box - there is something to be said about a previous platform (i.e. 2000 sp4) knowing that it is tried and true. I would think you would get a bit more stabability out of it than 2003 out of the gate simply because it has been around longer. However, the big factor that pushes me is that I know in the long run 2003 is more secure even if I have to adjust to the growing pains of 2003. However, I do have to say I have not had any issues with 2003 (standalone). We have had a few 2003 issues with in an AD environment. Darrell --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com. --- This E-mail came from the Declude.JunkMail mailing list. To unsubscribe, just send an E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and type "unsubscribe Declude.JunkMail". The archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com.
