Susan, SMTP isn't a client retrieval protocol (like POP), it's a mail delivery protocol. IMAP, POP, and MAPI are your client retrieval protocols. SMTP and (IIRC) MAPI are mail delivery protocols. MAPI doing double duty. SMTP, IMAP, and POP are the open (i.e. standardized) protocols. IMAP is generally considered superior to POP (makes me wonder does Exchange support IMAP?).
I must caveat and say I'm like 57% sure of all of the above, these things are happening at least 2 or 3 layers above where I work. Cheers, -BrettSh [msft] ESE Dev Posting as is ... On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, Susan Bradley wrote: > You do realize that that is officially a "transition tool" that you > should use to transition 'to' SMTP > > [and yes, even with a dynamic IP and all that you can still host your > own email] > > Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: > > >I have no problem with SBS except that stupid POP mail connector. > > > >Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > >Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > >Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!? > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA > >aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] > >Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 5:29 PM > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > > > >I would just like to point out that the person who has SBS Rocks as part of > >her email address did not post that.... > > > >I was thinking that though..... :-) > > > >Ed Crowley [MVP] wrote: > > > > > >>Less than 50 means SBS, doesn't it? Who needs virtualizaton? > >> > >>Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP > >>Freelance E-Mail Philosopher > >>Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups!? > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael B. > >>Smith > >>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 1:45 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >> > >>>>From a book proposal I wrote: > >> > >>According to the United States Small Business Administration (the US > >>SBA, at http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/arsbfaq.txt), small firms: > >> > >>* Total approximately 23 million in the United States. > >>* Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms. > >>* Employ half of all private sector employees. > >>* Pay 44.3 percent of the total U.S. private payroll. > >>* Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually. > >>* Create more than 50 percent of non-farm, private gross domestic > >>product (GDP). > >>* Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as > >>scientists, engineers, and computer workers). > >> > >>Now, the SBA defines a "small firm" as having less than 500 employees. > >>For the purpose of our discussion, we'll define a small company as > >>having less than 50 employees. According to > >>http://www.sba.gov/advo/stats/us_01ss.pdf, > >>this makes up approximately 50% of all employer firms. > >> > >>M > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick > >>Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:39 PM > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >> > >>Of course it's always best, but I have to wonder what the benefit of > >>running smaller exchange servers in a virtual environment would be? > >>Is that to deal with shrinking datacenter floor space? I was thinking > >>this might be interesting in an environment where I had lots of branch > >> > >> > >office deployments. > > > > > >> Might be easier to deploy a "solution in a box" to those sites. > >>Faster recovery scenarios come to mind as well. > >> > >>I have to say, I'm with Deji on this. If you want to deploy a mailbox > >>server, I don't see a problem with it up front as long as you treat it > >>like > >>clustering: respect the tool and it's idiosynchratic behavior patterns. > >>Otherwise, how many people are really deploying >2500 user density > >>(and have heavy user populations) for Exchange? Not nearly as many as > >>those deploying less if the majority of companies out there are ~99 > >>employees in the first place. [1] > >> > >>[1] just some stat I picked up in a magazine. Whatever. My point is > >>that the number of companies that have a) the number of employees to > >>do large density deployments and b) the networks to support it are > >>fewer than those that would have 10 users here and 50 users there > >>spread out across the globe. By the numbers, you're more likely to > >>deploy to a smaller user population than a larger one and I like the > >>idea of virtualization for these environments. It cuts down on some > >>of the datacenter clutter although it does increase my risks of > >>failure; it may cancel out if I can better watch a single machine's > >> > >> > >environmentals vs. a room full of them. > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Reply-To: [email protected] > >>>To: [email protected] > >>>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 08:21:24 -0500 > >>> > >>>I could see virtualizing low-end Exchange systems such as FEs and > >>>Bridgehead servers as stated earlier. The higher end databases are > >>>the ones that I have a problem with at this point in time, but I'm > >>>sure that the technology will evolve to where this becomes possible > >>>for higher end databases. > >>> > >>>It would be best in all cases to test a virtualized and > >>>non-virtualized option with production levels before proceding in a > >>> > >>> > >production environment. > > > > > >>>Chuck Gafford > >>>Systems Architect > >>> > >>>Unisys > >>> > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>To: [email protected] > >>>Sent: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:25:09 -0800 > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Perhaps some day I'll have time to run JetStress on an clustered > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>Exchange > >>>server on ESX attached to a SAN to see how it performs. > >>> > >>>Which is a good thing to do before concluding that virtualizing > >>>exchange is a "no-no". I'm jetstressing, and doing the old, trusted > >>>loadsim (albeit without access to a SAN) and I can't see a diff in > >>>performance. It's easy to based our conclusions on prior (bad) > >>>experiences and start telling people not to virtualize exc. But, > >>>until we can see any conclusive study of a performance lag, such > >>>advice is technically unsound and indefensible. Virtualization has > >>> > >>> > >evolved. > > > > > >>>Sincerely, > >>> > >>>D?j? Ak?m?l?f?, MCSE+M MCSA+M MCT > >>>Microsoft MVP - Directory Services > >>>www.readymaids.com - we know IT > >>>www.akomolafe.com > >>>Do you now realize that Today is the Tomorrow you were worried about > >>>Yesterday? -anon > >>> > >>>________________________________ > >>> > >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Presley, Steven > >>>Sent: Sun 10/30/2005 8:51 AM > >>>To: [email protected] > >>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>We are quite a large ESX shop (number of guest OS's are in the 1000's > >>>I > >>>believe) and while I fought it for quite some time we have ended up > >>>using ESX for our 5 front-end servers and our 3 bridgehead servers. > >>>Most ESX guest OS's don't require much tweaking, but Exchange > >>>certainly does (at least the bridgehead servers). Once we got the > >>>settings right for the bridgehead servers they fly like any other > >>>piece of hardware (the FE's didn't really require much tweaking). We > >>>have roughly 4,000 POP3\IMAP users, an average of 6k-7k of unique > >>>logons into OWA weekly, and roughly 800,000 messages going through the > >>> > >>> > >bridgehead servers daily. > > > > > >>>Virtualization of Exchange does indeed work for these types of > >>>servers when properly configured. Where I have seen ESX (and its > >>>little sister > >>>GSX) fail is hosting for servers that run highly active databases. > >>>ESX works great for dedicated SMTP\POP3\IMAP\HTTP servers, but I > >>>would never put a production Exchange mail store server on ESX for > >>>performance reasons alone. I have not specifically tested it > >>>however, but its more of based on past experience (perhaps as > >>>virtualization advances this will be a reality some day). Perhaps > >>>some day I'll have time to run JetStress on an clustered Exchange > >>>server on ESX attached to a SAN to see how it performs. > >>> > >>>For anyone who might ask why such a large virtualization footprint in > >>>our datacenters. The reason is simple. We have literally ran out of > >>>space and power in our datacenters. Even as we build new datacenters > >>>they fill up just as fast as we open them. While I don't have the > >>>numbers to give (not my field of focus here) I seem to remember > >>>seeing a report that virtualizing certain portions of our datacenter, > >>>where possible, has so far saved millions in hardware costs. > >>> > >>>It certainly is not for everything, but virtualization technology is > >>>definitely improving to where it is definitely an option. For > >>>Exchange and Active Directory, if ESX (or Virtual Server) is properly > >>>configured it can work quite well. > >>> > >>>Best regards, > >>>Steven > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brian > >>>>Desmond > >>>>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:49 PM > >>>>To: [email protected] > >>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>>> > >>>>I disagree. Exchange on ESX can work out quite well in certain > >>>>situations... > >>>> > >>>>Thanks, > >>>>Brian Desmond > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>>c - 312.731.3132 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Medeiros, > >>>>Jose > >>>>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 5:29 PM > >>>>To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>>> > >>>>I could not have worded that better. > >>>> > >>>>Sincerely, > >>>>Jose Medeiros > >>>>ADP | National Account Services > >>>>ProBusiness Division | Information Services > >>>>925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL > >>>>-------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of > >>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 6:53 AM > >>>>To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>I couldn't agree more with Tony -- Exchange is a resource hog and > >>>>should not be done on VMWare except for testing purposes. Just > >>>>because you can doesn't mean you should.... > >>>> > >>>>Chuck Gafford > >>>>Systems Architect > >>>>Unisys > >>>>Mobile: (405) 819-6766 > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: Medeiros, Jose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>To: [email protected]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Cc: # Jose Medeiros-IBM (E-mail) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>Sent: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:39:35 -0700 > >>>>Subject: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Hi Tony, > >>>> > >>>>I have to respond to this. Many IT managers think you can just > >>>>virtualize any application because of all the marketing hype. Be > >>>>very careful, I/O is critical to Exchange and any other database > >>>>application which may make running it on VMWARE or VIRTUAL SERVER > >>>>unpractical not to mention Exchange is also very resource intensive > >>>>and will take whatever it can. Now I am sure if you have a very > >>>>small environment that it may make sense, but with Microsoft Small > >>>>Business server why would you want to? > >>>> > >>>>Any body else car e to throw in there two cents? > >>>> > >>>>Sincerely, > >>>>Jose Medeiros > >>>>ADP | National Account Services > >>>>ProBusiness Division | Information Services > >>>>925.737.7967 | 408-449-6621 CELL > >>>> > >>>>-------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>-------------- > >>>>------------------------------------ > >>>> > >>>>-----Original Message----- > >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>>Behalf Of Tony Murray > >>>>Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2005 2:49 PM > >>>>To: [email protected] > >>>>Subject: [ActiveDir] [OT] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Microsoft has introduced support for Exchange 2003 SP2 and later on > >>>>Virtual Server 2005 R2. This article has just been released. > >>>> > >>>>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;320220 > >>>> > >>>>I guess this means we can now run a DC and Exchange on the same > >>>>physical hardware without any of the previous limitations. > >>>> > >>>>Tony > >>>> > >>>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>>>List archive: > >>>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >>>> > >>>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>>>List archive: > >>>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>>List archive: > >>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>>List archive: > >>>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>List archive: > >>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >> > >> > >>List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >>List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >>List archive: > >>http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > >-- > >Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? > >http://www.threatcode.com > > > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > >List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > >List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > >List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
