Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-19 Thread amos
Matthew Palmer wrote:
And therein lies the rub -- no connectors.  Which means no outlook
 

See for instance the last message on the page at:
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/view/78
Indeed free connector for LookOut to let it work with non-exchange 
servers are lacking,
but we are getting there.

Actually I found the link above while trying to re-dig the next one:
http://otlkcon.sourceforge.net/
Their last log entry is almost 6 months old. Anyone with more up to date 
info about this
project?

--Amos
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-18 Thread Alexander Samad
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:49:03PM +1000, Kevin Saenz wrote:

Has any one got any comments on communigate ? I saw it mentioned earlier
but no comments


 First of all congrats.
 -- 
 SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
 Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
 


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-18 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 07:08:46PM +1000, Alexander Samad wrote:
 On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 10:49:03PM +1000, Kevin Saenz wrote:
 Has any one got any comments on communigate ? I saw it mentioned earlier
 but no comments

It has a decent web interface.  That's about the only good thing to be said
about it, really.  By all reports the MAPI (Outlook) plugin is useful, but
slow, and doesn't support OL 2003 real well.  It suffers from the usual
problems of monolithic servers, of a lack of real flexibility, and because
it's closed-source it doesn't get the features developed that it needs,
despite having a fairly active and clueful user community, because the
development team seems pretty small and under-resourced.

If you had a real need to support Outlook with full groupware functionality,
but really really really wanted your mail on a linux server, and hadn't
forked out for Exchange, it'd be worth it.  I don't think the benefits of it
are really worth the cost as a migration scheme away from Exchange, though.

One advantage of it is that you can try it out before you buy it -- so it's
not a real risky proposition.  I wish they'd open-source the thing, or
provide the specs to their proprietary protocols so you could pick and
choose the bits of it you wanted to use, and better integrate it with other
systems.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-18 Thread Jeff Waugh
quote who=Alexander Samad

 Has any one got any comments on communigate ? I saw it mentioned earlier
 but no comments

Run away! Run away!

- Jeff

-- 
linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australiahttp://linux.conf.au/
 
  And up in the corporate box there's a group of pleasant
   thirtysomething guys making tuneful music for the masses of people who
can spell 'nihilism', but don't want to listen to it in the car. -
Richard Jinman, SMH
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread DaZZa
On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Rev Simon Rumble wrote:

 It grabs me that the biggest problem free software has in this sphere is
 that Microsoft have set the bar too high.  Everyone assumes that all
 organisations need all the features Exchange provides.  In my
 experience, LDAP, IMAP and some kind of calendar are all that are
 needed.

 Are there no free software clients that integrate these features?  I
 think calendaring is the big gap...

You think correctly.

I would dearly _love_ to pitch exchange from the highest roof I can find,
but I can't - because the PTB's want their shared calendaring, and they
'aint gonna give it up for anyone.

What would PA's do then?

If I could find a reliable open source solution which works with LookOut,
and does calendars like exchange, I'd move heaven and hell to convince the
boss to shift to it.

But I can't - everything I've found is either still in beta or worse, or
the licensing is as bad as M$'s for exchange - and that's one of my
biggest reasons for wanting to get rid of the pile of dog droppings.

I know about the SuSE/Novell product - but as far as I can tell, it's
still very unfinished compared to exchange.

ANyone got another suggestion?

DaZZa

-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread Graham Smith
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:42, DaZZa wrote:
 I would dearly _love_ to pitch exchange from the highest roof I can find,
 but I can't - because the PTB's want their shared calendaring, and they
 'aint gonna give it up for anyone.

 What would PA's do then?

 If I could find a reliable open source solution which works with LookOut,
 and does calendars like exchange, I'd move heaven and hell to convince the
 boss to shift to it.

 But I can't - everything I've found is either still in beta or worse, or
 the licensing is as bad as M$'s for exchange - and that's one of my
 biggest reasons for wanting to get rid of the pile of dog droppings.

 I know about the SuSE/Novell product - but as far as I can tell, it's
 still very unfinished compared to exchange.

 ANyone got another suggestion?

 DaZZa

Regarding the SuSE Openexchange Server, the engine  is now released under GPL.
The announcement is here
http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/

The open source version of OPEN-XCHANGE will be available free by download at 
(www.open-xchange.org and www.openexchange.com) by the end of August and will 
feature most of the award-winning attributes of the commercial product - 
running on the major Linux operating systems (Novell's SUSE LINUX, Red Hat, 
Red Flag, Debian) -- but without support and maintenance, third-party 
applications and connectors.


-- 
Regards,

Graham Smith
-
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread Graham Smith
Another project tied to KDE is Kolab.  The majority of which appers to be 
heavily under development.

Information can be found here
http://kolab.org/
http://dot.kde.org/1092468813/

-- 
Regards,

Graham Smith
-
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 02:41:34AM +1000, Graham Smith wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:42, DaZZa wrote:
  I would dearly _love_ to pitch exchange from the highest roof I can find,
  but I can't - because the PTB's want their shared calendaring, and they
  'aint gonna give it up for anyone.
 
  What would PA's do then?
 
  If I could find a reliable open source solution which works with LookOut,
  and does calendars like exchange, I'd move heaven and hell to convince the
  boss to shift to it.
 
  But I can't - everything I've found is either still in beta or worse, or
  the licensing is as bad as M$'s for exchange - and that's one of my
  biggest reasons for wanting to get rid of the pile of dog droppings.
 
  I know about the SuSE/Novell product - but as far as I can tell, it's
  still very unfinished compared to exchange.
 
  ANyone got another suggestion?
 
  DaZZa
 
 Regarding the SuSE Openexchange Server, the engine  is now released under GPL.
 The announcement is here
 http://mirror.open-xchange.org/ox/EN/community/
 
 The open source version of OPEN-XCHANGE??? will be available free by download at 
 (www.open-xchange.org and www.openexchange.com) by the end of August and will 
 feature most of the award-winning attributes of the commercial product - 
 running on the major Linux operating systems (Novell's SUSE LINUX, Red Hat, 
 Red Flag, Debian) -- but without support and maintenance, third-party 
 applications and connectors.

And therein lies the rub -- no connectors.  Which means no outlook
integration without $$$.  And let me tell you, having inflicted myself with
a proprietary Outlook connector in the past (Bynari you bunch of snakeoil
pushers) there's no shortage of ways in which an Outlook connector can screw
up -- I'd *definitely* want the source to any Outlook plugin I'd deploy in
the future.

GPLing the engine is nothing -- all of that stuff is already out there in
any number of MTAs, calendar servers, and the rest of it.  It's the
integration with horseshit MUAs that the suits seem to have some sort of
sick love affair with that's really needed.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html

Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread O Plameras
Graham Smith wrote:
Another project tied to KDE is Kolab.  The majority of which appers to be 
heavily under development.

Information can be found here
http://kolab.org/
http://dot.kde.org/1092468813/
 

Horde has KOLAB.
It is one of the backend choices.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread Kevin Saenz
I am currently playing with Kolab. I can't get kmail to read or grab my 
emails. but thunderbird works a treat. I am also trailing a outlook 
plugin called toltec connector it's US$13 a pop. The only problem that I 
have so far is that you have to create mail folders under the inbox 
rather than your account, to me that looks messy.

Another project tied to KDE is Kolab.  The majority of which appers to be 
heavily under development.

Information can be found here
http://kolab.org/
http://dot.kde.org/1092468813/
 

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-17 Thread Peter Rundle
Kevin Saenz wrote:
[snip] The only problem that I 
have so far is that you have to create mail folders under the inbox 
rather than your account, to me that looks messy.
I complained about this once with the courier imap server and was told 
that's the RFC standard. Seems to me that the standard is bruck.

There is no inbox directory on the server, mail in your inbox is in the 
top level directory of your server account. Any other folders that you 
create then become a sub-directory of your inbox as they can't appear at 
the same level as your inbox because then you'd have multiple 
directoryies in /var/spool/mail. This to me is an oversight on the part of 
the designers. I would have thought that the in-box should be a 
sub-directory of your top level mail account directory. This way you could 
have folders at the same level as your inbox and others as sub-folders of 
your inbox. I briefly contemplated hacking the courier imap server to fix 
this but would also have to hack q-mail so I decided to just live with it.

But different browsers will display the folders as either sub or at the 
same level on the same imap server!

Pete.

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Matthew Palmer
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:49:34AM -0700, pesoy misak wrote:
 Dear all
  
 Well I just got a little story behind this question. I just succeed
 convince my customer that trying to do web design using ASP.net to use
 Linux using PHP yeaaahhh Linux Rulez. now seems I got a bit problem trying
 to convince this administrator to change all the system using linux. he is
 asking about the mail server for replacement for their exchange server
 2003 that he said is the best (may be true) I just want to debate with
 this guy since I haven't much experience with mail server. he want to know
 the capabilities of each linux mail server and compatibilty and how much
 can the mail server handle like how much email etc, etc and how much size
 that it could handle

The first thing to realise is that most Linux mail servers aren't an
integrated whole -- you build them together from the relevant bits -- pick
an MTA that best suits your needs, bolt an MDA for your desired message
storage format (if it's not supported natively by your MTA), and then put an
IMAP/POP server on for retrieval.

This mix and match approach is useful, because you can (for instance)
support sites with a relatively low rate of incoming mail, but a high rate
of client-side IMAP access by choosing the right tools for the job.

There are a couple of integrated mail systems -- I think cyrus 2 is like
this, and there's XMail and Courier, and a bunch of commercial ones like
Communigate are like them.  I hate the really tightly bound ones, because
they're a big black box -- hmm, like Exchange.

Basically, you can easily build a mail server which will handle several
times the volume of mail that Exchange will for a fraction of the *hardware*
cost, let alone the licencing fees.

On the other hand, there is one thing that Exchange does that nobody else
has managed to provide -- the complete basic groupware functionality and
integration with Outlook.  Outlook is (incomprehensibly) popular, and a lot
of companies want/like the integrated shared calendars and address books,
which really nothing else does.

And, when it comes down to it, your average click-monkey can usually fix
what's wrong with an Exchange server by either pointing and clicking (thus
accidentally fixing whatever they accidentally fucked up in the first place)
or by sacrificing a goat and reinstalling at the correct phase of the moon. 
No actual thought required in either case, which is an unpleasant side
effect of running a decent mail system (or server in general).

Oops, I think I'm frothing a bit.  Hope I didn't get any on the carpet.

- Matt


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Dean Hamstead
most people dont even need all features of exchange. most
people (even just for internal mail) will do quite happily
with nothing more than a pop3 mail server.
even my work, which has pisses hundreds of thousands into
exchange and hardware blah blah blah, could easily just
use pop3 (even with exchange) and an ldap server for
some address booking
Dean
Matthew Palmer wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2004 at 02:49:34AM -0700, pesoy misak wrote:
Dear all
Well I just got a little story behind this question. I just succeed
convince my customer that trying to do web design using ASP.net to use
Linux using PHP yeaaahhh Linux Rulez. now seems I got a bit problem trying
to convince this administrator to change all the system using linux. he is
asking about the mail server for replacement for their exchange server
2003 that he said is the best (may be true) I just want to debate with
this guy since I haven't much experience with mail server. he want to know
the capabilities of each linux mail server and compatibilty and how much
can the mail server handle like how much email etc, etc and how much size
that it could handle

The first thing to realise is that most Linux mail servers aren't an
integrated whole -- you build them together from the relevant bits -- pick
an MTA that best suits your needs, bolt an MDA for your desired message
storage format (if it's not supported natively by your MTA), and then put an
IMAP/POP server on for retrieval.
This mix and match approach is useful, because you can (for instance)
support sites with a relatively low rate of incoming mail, but a high rate
of client-side IMAP access by choosing the right tools for the job.
There are a couple of integrated mail systems -- I think cyrus 2 is like
this, and there's XMail and Courier, and a bunch of commercial ones like
Communigate are like them.  I hate the really tightly bound ones, because
they're a big black box -- hmm, like Exchange.
Basically, you can easily build a mail server which will handle several
times the volume of mail that Exchange will for a fraction of the *hardware*
cost, let alone the licencing fees.
On the other hand, there is one thing that Exchange does that nobody else
has managed to provide -- the complete basic groupware functionality and
integration with Outlook.  Outlook is (incomprehensibly) popular, and a lot
of companies want/like the integrated shared calendars and address books,
which really nothing else does.
And, when it comes down to it, your average click-monkey can usually fix
what's wrong with an Exchange server by either pointing and clicking (thus
accidentally fixing whatever they accidentally fucked up in the first place)
or by sacrificing a goat and reinstalling at the correct phase of the moon. 
No actual thought required in either case, which is an unpleasant side
effect of running a decent mail system (or server in general).

Oops, I think I'm frothing a bit.  Hope I didn't get any on the carpet.
- Matt
--
WWW: http://dean.bong.com.au  LAN: http://www.bong.com.au
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   or   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 16867613
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Rev Simon Rumble
This one time, at band camp, Dean Hamstead wrote:
 most people dont even need all features of exchange. most
 people (even just for internal mail) will do quite happily
 with nothing more than a pop3 mail server.
 
 even my work, which has pisses hundreds of thousands into
 exchange and hardware blah blah blah, could easily just
 use pop3 (even with exchange) and an ldap server for
 some address booking

It grabs me that the biggest problem free software has in this sphere is 
that Microsoft have set the bar too high.  Everyone assumes that all 
organisations need all the features Exchange provides.  In my 
experience, LDAP, IMAP and some kind of calendar are all that are 
needed.

Are there no free software clients that integrate these features?  I 
think calendaring is the big gap...

-- 
Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rumble.net

 The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for wit.
- Somerset Maugham
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread O Plameras
pesoy misak wrote:
Dear all
 
Well I just got a little story behind this question. I just succeed 
convince my customer that trying to do web design using ASP.net to use 
Linux using PHP yeaaahhh
Linux Rulez. now seems I got a bit problem trying to convince this 
administrator to change all the system using linux. he is asking about 
the mail server for replacement for their exchange server 2003 that he 
said is the best (may be true)
I just want to debate with this guy since I haven't much experience 
with mail server. he want to know the capabilities of each linux mail 
server and compatibilty and how much can the mail server handle like 
how much email etc, etc and how much size that it could handle
 
well I really praise linux for everything i hope i could find some answer
 
Now, your customer has PHP.
You may leverage the idea of PHP in your sales pitch to
sell Linux Servers running Mail MTAs for its flexibility,
security, and manageability.
A number of selling points:
1. Postfix MTA  is easy to install, simple to manage, fast
and efficient. It is highly scalable; handles multiple
(virtual) mail domains with a single point of login
no matter how many mail servers in the mail server
farms. You may use MySQL (or LDAP) backend and PHP
scripting language. May be secured with current encryption
softwares like openssl through cyrus-sasl and kerberos.
Supports authenticated mobile smtp mail users.
http://www.postfix.org
http://asg.web.cmu.edu/sasl
http://www.openssl.org
http://www.openldap.org
http://www.mysql.com
http://www.php.net
http://web.mit.edu/kerberos/www
2. In combination with Courier-IMAP, Postfix makes
it hard to fault as simple and flexible Mail Server that's
easy to administer.
http://www.courier-mta.org/imap
3. With Horde, IMP, Kronolith, Turba, Vilma, Chora,
Klutz, Mnemo, etc. this Linux Mail Server becomes a
workgroup server capable of handling calendars,
address books, presentations, news, mail filtering,
centralised IT support centre with online chat support,
instant and online user surveys,etc. Horde and all of its
components are written in PHP scripting using Object
Oriented Programming Principles.
http://www.horde.org
Have fun.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Kevin Saenz
First of all congrats.
Second this rule applies to all systems. Do not convert wholly to one 
one environment.
Honestly Exchange is a good product, the only product that would give it 
a run for it money would be groupwise from Novell. Also a side note 
zenworks is more sturdy than microsoft's sms, it deals with licencing, 
installation, and managing workstations better than sms.
Realistically a hetrogenous environment is better than homogenous 
environments in the area of security and managability.

Dear all
 
Well I just got a little story behind this question. I just succeed 
convince my customer that trying to do web design using ASP.net to use 
Linux using PHP yeaaahhh
Linux Rulez. now seems I got a bit problem trying to convince this 
administrator to change all the system using linux. he is asking about 
the mail server for replacement for their exchange server 2003 that he 
said is the best (may be true)
I just want to debate with this guy since I haven't much experience 
with mail server. he want to know the capabilities of each linux mail 
server and compatibilty and how much can the mail server handle like 
how much email etc, etc and how much size that it could handle
 
well I really praise linux for everything i hope i could find some answer
 
many thanks in advance


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out! 
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/new/*http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail 

--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Dean Hamstead
go get the calendar plugin for firefox/thunderbird/mozilla
or get it as the stand alone app 'sunbird'.
personally ive found sunbird to be good on its own (in windows)
its based on the nice open standadrd apple made with ical.
ical is a cool calendaring app thats for sure, i love it.
use it on my mac. but use sunbird everywhere else.
because of nice open standards, i can drop calendars back
and forth perfectly.
sunbird it going to murder outlook.
i can seriously see firefox, thunderbird and sunbird taking
some serious market share in the upcoming shortish time period.
firefox is already wiping out ie and thunderbird is taking
outlook express to town.
Dean
Rev Simon Rumble wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Dean Hamstead wrote:
most people dont even need all features of exchange. most
people (even just for internal mail) will do quite happily
with nothing more than a pop3 mail server.
even my work, which has pisses hundreds of thousands into
exchange and hardware blah blah blah, could easily just
use pop3 (even with exchange) and an ldap server for
some address booking

It grabs me that the biggest problem free software has in this sphere is 
that Microsoft have set the bar too high.  Everyone assumes that all 
organisations need all the features Exchange provides.  In my 
experience, LDAP, IMAP and some kind of calendar are all that are 
needed.

Are there no free software clients that integrate these features?  I 
think calendaring is the big gap...

--
WWW: http://dean.bong.com.au  LAN: http://www.bong.com.au
EMAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]   or   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 16867613
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Rev Simon Rumble
This one time, at band camp, Dean Hamstead wrote:
 go get the calendar plugin for firefox/thunderbird/mozilla
 or get it as the stand alone app 'sunbird'.
 personally ive found sunbird to be good on its own (in windows)

Hmmm.  This is looking a _little_ more polished than last time I tried 
it.  Still got a ways to go.

However, this is NOT what people expect from an enterprise calendar.  
You can't invite people, view their status on a proposed date or 
schedule non-human resources.  These are the things Exchange does that 
people actually use.

And for the people who suggest Novell Groupwise: I presume you're not 
the same people who bleat about Exchange HTML and RTF emails, because 
Groupwise produces some truly hideous emails.

-- 
Rev Simon Rumble [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.rumble.net

Which is more musical, a truck passing by a factory
 or a truck passing by a music school?
- John Cage
-- 
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html


Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement

2004-08-16 Thread Kevin Saenz

And for the people who suggest Novell Groupwise: I presume you're not 
the same people who bleat about Exchange HTML and RTF emails, because 
Groupwise produces some truly hideous emails.

 

Hmmm I haven't seen that, I guess it's a config issue. Might be like 
Domino mail servers.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html