On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Adam Tauno Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The below isn't meant to shoot down your idea, but I'm an Open Source > groupware developer and am very familiar with the Exchange-vs-XYZ > equation. > >> As per the subject, I am about to pitch the idea of dumping Exchange >> and moving to Postfix. From what I can observe, the Calendar and >> Meeting functions are used very little if at all. We have roaming
"very little" is entirely different from not at all. The calendar/contact/etc functionality of Exchange is very powerful and Postfix et al will not provide the same functionality (maybe with something like $Zimbra) . Are you sure your users don't need it, or won't need it next month after the CEO sits next to somebody on a plane that is real time syncing their Blackberry to their corporate calendar, etc? >> profiles (call center area has no fixed seating and hectic >> scheduling). Biggest use people get out of Exchange is the sorting / >> folders and that's nothing T-bird can't handle. > > Postfix is an SMTP MTA; it isn't an IMAP/POP server. It can't replace > Exchange, it isn't the same thing. Cyrus IMAPd + Postfix can replace > the mail portion of Exchange, but not Postfix alone. The much more > difficult part is setting up [appropriately] the IMAP server and > clients. Configuring Postfix is as easy as falling-off-a-log for most > sites. > >> Ideally (laugh if you like): >> I want to set up Postfix on a second box and transition transparently, >> importing or converting anything and everything that can be imported >> or converted. I want to tell management about how they can do >> everything they currently do on Exchange (i'll let them realize it's >> faster and less annoying after it happens). > > But they can't, be careful what promises you make. > Exactly. >> I need users to log in to any machine in the building and get the >> same IMAP and customization they currently have (again, roaming >> profiles and Thunderbird would handle this, right? I've not banged my >> head against this kind of thing in Windows much, but now seems a good >> time to learn). I want the general user population to notice as >> little as possible before, during and after the change, except for >> clicking Thunderbird (or whatever might be better) instead of Exchange >> to read their mail. > > Yes, Thunderbird works with roaming profiles; albeit rather badly. > Thunderbird has no auto-configuration mechanism so every user's > account(s) need to be setup manually and it is prone to making HUGE > cache files if not setup carefully. All-in-all it is a rather lousy > IMAP client compared to others. Why not just stick with Outlook? Your > likely to have a much easier time with the users if they are used to > Outlook (and you already paid for it anyway). > Right.. you already have an IMAP client that works well in a microsoft environment (and specifically with roaming profiles) and is familiar to your users. Why add new software? >> What are selling points i can outline for said management? Is this >> even a good idea? Realistic goal? Something I shouldn't attempt >> unless I already know how? > > It is realistic to replace the mail component. But (a) will they > tolerate using a client other than Outlook and (b) if you have even a > few user's who use calendering how loud are they going to scream when > you take it away? If your Exchange is working how do you justify the > cost [labor] of transition? Effort to deliver a solution that provides > less functionality is a pretty hard business case. > >> Essentially this is coming about due to a "need this dun nao!" for a >> new server that, it turns out, we have no windows server license for. >> Rather than coughing up the cash for Winserver 2k8 and the associated >> CALs (ouch), i'd like to point out to the Director that we can do >> everything we use exchange for, fer free. We already have the > > Is that true? "everything we use exchange for" needs to be *very* > carefully researched. > > You can transition your license(s) from your old/existing server. > Again, right on the money. You already have Exchange cals, how is not using them going to save money, exactly? >> hardware (new robust server a database is going on, linux-based). I >> hate trying to sell this kind of thing when my impulse is to wave my >> arms around yelling "IT'S OBVIOUS!" :) > A very tough sell. You want to replace a working, existing system with one that has less function in order to save money that you already spent? It's not obvious to me. On the other hand, if you just want to justify having a postfix server around, there are some easy arguments to make. Postfix works great in front of Exchange, actually makes Exchange a lot easier to keep running by shielding it from the nasty business on the internet. It increases reliabiliy of your mail system, it increases security by keeping your windows box safely hidden. It can do a good job of blocking spam and viruses and so reduce load on your exchange system. It is good at getting a lot of mail sent out quickly. If it were up to me, I'd add postfix rather than replace Exchange. Good luck -Aaron > But it isn't. > -- > Consonance: an Open Source .NET OpenGroupware client. > Contact:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://freshmeat.net/projects/consonance/ > >
