I think what Susan's trying to say is that: The POP3 connector is just a "transition tool" that allows your SBS box to collect mail for your employees up until you start hosting your own SMTP server and receive mail directly (rather than collecting it via the POP3 connector from your ISP's mailboxes, or wherever).
That said, I believe this is rapidly drifting more and more off-topic. Cheers Ken -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley Sent: Tuesday, 1 November 2005 3:39 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Exchange now supported on virtual hardware [okay so now we're getting a bit OT] 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!(tm) > > > >-----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!(tm) > >> > >>-----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 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/
