On Dec 30, 2005, at 18:13, Ben Scott wrote:
You could always call the BSA anti-piracy hotline at 1-888-NO-PIRACY
and report them.
Ha ha. Only serious.
You assume this isn't by design and Microsoft would want to prosecute.
I'm not yet convinced the time has come to ruin our pirating
On 1/1/06, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 30, 2005, at 18:13, Ben Scott wrote:
You could always call the BSA anti-piracy hotline at 1-888-NO-PIRACY
and report them.
Ha ha. Only serious.
You assume this isn't by design and Microsoft would want to prosecute.
No,
On 12/29/05, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/29/05, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: g) If the load issue is enough to justify a separate Exchange server, then add another Windows Server licensing cost.
Unless, of course, someone has an MSDN subscription.. I'm not sure, but I
On Dec 29, 2005, at 23:36, Ben Scott wrote:
Unless, of course, someone has an MSDN subscription..
I'm not sure, but I think the MSDN license does not permit
production use of server products.
Ah, yes, the dirty little secret of Microsoft licensing. The other one
being the Action Pack
On Dec 30, 2005, at 14:09, mike ledoux wrote:
their suggested solution was
'build another server with enough disk space to restore the entire
mail store, install and configure exactly the same version of scalix
with all patches, etc., then wrestle with openmail to export that
user's mail and
On 12/30/05, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know several consultants who run their businesses on the
Action Pack because they couldn't afford to actually buy the required
licenses. They then recommend these products to their clients.
I tell them, don't pirate* - use free software.
Hi,
I've been following with interest the discussion re: a
replacement for MS Exchange. I have been looking for
a viable alternative for having an Exchange server,
for some time. I am looking into Scalix
(http://scalix.com/) and wondered if anyone has yet
compiled a list of all the possible
On Dec 29, 2005, at 12:36, mike shlitz wrote:
I am looking into Scalix
(http://scalix.com/) and wondered if anyone has yet
compiled a list of all the possible FOSS alternatives
avilable out there?
I'm not sure about the list, but if you're compiling one, this looks
pretty slick too:
Below are devils advocate responses. Becouse while I agree on many of them, there comes a point when 'D00d, Exhang3 1z sux0rs!' may need a little check.. ;-)
On 12/23/05, Dan Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Issues with Exchange I can think of, off the top of my head:a) The aforementioned backups
On 12/22/05, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to come up with (currently) valid reasons why it's a bad ideato move engineering over to an Exchange-based IMAP server from a
linux/cyrus-based IMAP server.So, I'm asking for help from those ofyou who have current, relevant experience with
On 12/29/05, Thomas Charron [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
g) If the load issue is enough to justify a separate Exchange server,
then add another Windows Server licensing cost.
Unless, of course, someone has an MSDN subscription..
I'm not sure, but I think the MSDN license does not permit
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:26:02 -0500, Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The point that Dan Jenkins raises WRT storage demands is a good one.
Exchange storage tends to cost more then Unix mail storage. This
is especially true if you're on Exchange Standard, which has a 16 GB
limit (or 75 GB
On Thursday 22 December 2005 03:40 pm, Paul Lussier wrote:
Hi folks,
Up until now I've been fairly lucky in maintaining our IMAP server on
Cyrus. However, we've identified a project which we'd like to move
forward to better construct our mail architecture. When we proposed
this project to
Also make sure that the Exchange server isn't retardedly configured to
e.g. block all incoming .zip / .exe attachments. While this is
argued to be necessary for security by some IT departments, it's
complete hell for an engineer trying to use the system... heck, .zip
and .exe attachments are most
From my understanding, you're in the engineering group at this company
and you keep your own separate mail server?
If Exchange is setup, would you have to maintain it at all?
I say if it's not your problem, let them do what they want.
I've been at a number of companies that used Exchange. As
It'll become his problem when the server gets owned and he loses a
week of e-mail. I'd say do the prep work now so if they do pull the
trigger on your idea, implementation isn't that hard.
This can happen regardless of the mail server. It's up to the system
admins to keep the servers locked
Ben Scott wrote:
Security: I've never seen a properly administered Exchange server
get owned or anything like that. The security issues are all on the
client side.
Actually I've had to repair several, however, it is unclear to me that
they were properly administered since we were brought
That all becomes IT's problem. It only becomes Engineering's problem
again if IT flubs it somehow.
As long as IT provides an acceptable SLA for Engineering (one that
Engineering is willing to live
with, at least), then the problems are no longer Engineering's, which
can then focus on
On 12/23/05, Dan Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Security: I've never seen a properly administered Exchange server
get owned or anything like that. The security issues are all on the
client side.
Actually I've had to repair several however, it is unclear to me that
they were properly
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:55, Ben Scott wrote:
This may have changed in Exchange 2003, but I don't think it has.
Somebody told me Exchange 2K3 was all WebDAV, Kerberos, and LDAP. They
may have been dreaming.
I've seen setups where you put a postfix server in front of Exchange
and cc: a
On 12/23/05, Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Dec 23, 2005, at 12:55, Ben Scott wrote:
This may have changed in Exchange 2003, but I don't think it has.
Somebody told me Exchange 2K3 was all WebDAV, Kerberos, and LDAP. They
may have been dreaming.
They may have been on crack.
On Friday 23 December 2005 07:15 pm, Dan Jenkins wrote:
I've used Courier IMAP for years, mainly because I got it running faster
than Cyrus. I've often wondered since what is better with Cyrus. The
documentation at the time was, politely speaking, opaque. I've just
never had the time to go
Dan Jenkins writes:
I've used Courier IMAP for years, mainly because I got it running
faster than Cyrus. I've often wondered since what is better with
Cyrus. The documentation at the time was, politely speaking,
opaque. I've just never had the time to go back and try something
else. I've
Hi folks,
Up until now I've been fairly lucky in maintaining our IMAP server on
Cyrus. However, we've identified a project which we'd like to move
forward to better construct our mail architecture. When we proposed
this project to our VP of Engineering, he rightfully asked the
question of, Why
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 03:40:54PM -0500, Paul Lussier wrote:
In other words, he's more than happy to see the IT group sink rather
than swim. However, I'd rather do the right thing, just do the work
and not waste a bunch of people's time or the company's money with
failed (possibly
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Why use exchange? No really. If all you want is an IMAP server,
what is the reason for using Exchange?
All *engineering* wants is an IMAP server. The business side already
has an Exchange server. The basic argument is, Why can't Engineering
Paul Lussier wrote:
Mark Komarinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1) Why use exchange? No really. If all you want is an IMAP
server, what is the reason for using Exchange?
All *engineering* wants is an IMAP server. The business side already
has an Exchange server. The basic argument is, Why
27 matches
Mail list logo
