著者: Edgar Lovecraft 日付: To: exim-users 題目: Re: [Exim] OT: Need some feed back on Exchange as an SMTP server
Bruce Richardson wrote: >
Now we are getting somewhere.
> We have the skills to implement our own calendar and other groupware
> components and that's what we have done. Since we were not going to use
> Exchange's groupware features, it had nothing special to offer us.
I agree, if you have no need for the Groupware features, there is no
reason to purchase or build a product that does have those features.
> Its implementation of Internet protocols is inferior to those of several
> of the other systems we looked at (and quite deliberately omits some
> features where MS would prefer you to use its proprietary protocols).
Would you kindly let me know which Internet Protocols and features you are
speaking of, and please list the version or versions of Exchange that go
with those limitations.
> Our current system is a mixture of open source, commercial and in-house
> systems, united by our databases (running on MS SQL Server, so we can't
> be accused of being simply anti-MS). It works the way we want to,
> precisely how we want it to. We could replace any of the individual
> components (mailstore, client, datastore) with a minimum of disruption.
Good point, you preferred the ability to 'control your destiny' rather than
have someone else do so, I am the same, thus wy I use exim as my MTA.
> I recognise that many organisations don't have the resources to do this
> themselves but on the other hand we are not a large IT team (7 in
> total), so you don't have to be Google to do this kind of thing.
No, you do not have to be large, just knowledgable of the products that you
will be using.
> Branching off on even more of a tangent, I'd like to take this
> opportunity to rant about the paltry number of mail clients, commercial
> or open source, that can use a database to store preferences and address
> books.
Most if any do not have SQL lookup types, but there is a very wide range of
products that support LDAP for address-books and some that do so even for
user prefrences. Only problem with LDAP address-books is that no one seems
to agree completely on what the LDAP attributes should be, although things
have been getting 'corrected' in that respect.
> Any organisation making any serious use of IT has its own datastore and
> it's a natural place to store staff and contact information (much more
> natural than an Exchange or GroupWise pseudo-database).
All Exchange user information is available over LDAP, are you suggesting
that LDAP is a pseudo-database?
> The makers of Windows clients have even less excuse than the others: it
> would be trivial to add ODBC capabilities. While MS obviously have no
> interest in doing this (why let people build their own systems when you
> want them to buy Exchange?), I'm puzzled at the attitude of the rest.
They let people build thier own with or without Exchange, any Exchange
installation and any MS Active Directory installation support LDAP. LDAP
has become the 'way to find things' when it comes to that sort of Internet
data.
