Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement
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
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
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
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
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$'s for exchange - and that's one of my biggest reasons for wanting to get rid of the pile of dog droppings. I know about the SuSE/Novell product - but as far as I can tell, it's still very unfinished compared to exchange. ANyone got another suggestion? DaZZa -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html
Re: [SLUG] exchange server 2003 linux replacement
On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 19:42, DaZZa wrote: I would dearly _love_ to pitch exchange from the highest roof I can find, but I can't - because the PTB's want their shared calendaring, and they 'aint gonna give it up for anyone. What would PA's do then? If I could find a reliable open source solution which works with LookOut, and does calendars like exchange, I'd move heaven and hell to convince the boss to shift to it. But I can't - everything I've found is either still in beta or worse, or the licensing is as bad as M$'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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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