Thanks for the advice; I really think it's more than two-cents based.

As you suggest, going "other" route means getting a MAPI plugin for
whatever solution, so you add another complexity layer on the setup.
The only reason I might see to do something like that is price
(exchange is not a cheap beast ;)

On the "bringing the thing inhouse" issue, the feeling is that having
an MX in-house means inviting all kind of naties to come knocking
(spammer, DOS-ers, etc) and that means aditional babysitting: we don't
have full-time admin staff, but rather the people in the testing dept.
are the ones who run the servers. All of the technical staff are
familiar with AD (after all, we sell a product that is AD-based), but
messaging is another beast.... Not to talk about the data pipe needed:
We get quite a lot of spam, and 10+ PPT files are not uncommon ;)

At the moment, if the DSL goes down, the problem is we can't get our
mail, but at least we don't lose any... I might be able to sell a
setup with an "entry point" (including spam filtering) that is outside
the office, and then having an in-house server.. but again the fact
that over half our employees are NOT in our offce makes it difficult
to jutify having the server inhouse IMO. Of course, the cost issue has
to be taken into account: maybe an aditional DSL line and a part-time
admin may add up to the cost of external maiboxes...

Thanks a lot for the input, anyhow.


On 06/12/06, Dave Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My two cents (these could euro cents or dollar cents). Exchange and Outlook are designed 
to work together. Despite having declared MAPI dead several times Microsoft continues to 
enhance and expand it, for example with RPC over HTTP. I am pretty sure you will either 
see reduced functionality, or face additional work on the clients to install add-ins if 
you go with a non-exchange based server. That is I support your conclusion that 
"getting the real" thing is the way to go.

As for "infrastructure" well I am not sure about the amount of resilience 
that's needed. If you set the users up to use OST files they may be able to tolerate 
short breaks in comms on your DSL, as they will still be able to read existing mails, 
compose new mails and meetings.

Perhaps now is the time to move the query to an Exchange list, there are a 
number of them at Yahoo. Probably :-

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Javier Jarava
> Sent: 06 December 2006 16:57
> To:
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Maybe OT: Shared Calendars w/o using
> Exchange? Tips/Suggestions/Recommedations?
> Hi!
> Thanks for the prompt reply...
> As for "hosted" solutions, I guess that I don't much care
> wether the backend is Exchange, SBS or whatever the hosting
> company choses to provide ;) From what I've seen
> (,
> -
> yes, we are based in Spain - or to show
> that I'm looking
> elsewhere) basically what you get is a webbased admin panel
> and a number of accounts that you configure... not too much
> control but "good enough".... Of course, I'd love to get
> recommendations for other providers or to be shown that "not
> all of them are similar" ;)
> As for the lack of a server for 40+ users, well, that's not really
> true: We have an AD (2003) domain (basic setup: single
> forest, single domain, 2 DCs) for the users, it's just that
> the email is hosted on a external server, to avoid downtime
> and lessen the administrative load on "network admin" (we
> don't have a full time person for that). Also, we currently
> have 2 main offices in Spain (conneted by DSL) and people
> working or tele-working in the US, Mexico, Colombia, Germany
> and the UK (2/3 people on each place at most): I believe that
> creating the infrastructure (relability-wise) to serve all
> those locations inhouse would be a tad expensive and (I
> belive) not really warranted. Of course, I'd love to hear
> opinions either way...
> As for "control freak", we have an VPS so we have root on the
> mail server; as a matter of fact the hardest point for the
> internal acceptance of a hosted solution would probably "lack
> of root access"
> on the email server...
> I agree with you that to manage that "that many" (ok, those
> who manage Multi-K domains, please stop laughing) users, AD
> is a must.... And, besides, we delvelop security software
> that runs on top of AD, so I'd be a bit odd if we didn't use
> our own SW ;)
> In any case, I really am starting to believe that the simpler
> thing will be to "get the real thing", so the options seem to
> be: 1) Get an Exchange Server inhouse. But that means making
> sure that our DSL line doesn't go down, and having the
> bandwith etc... 2) "House" a server on some co-lo. The comm.
> problems disappear, but we still have to babysit the thing...
> 3) Go for a hosted exchange provider. I've seen offers on the
> range of ~7€/mo/user; I believe that for a limited number of
> user (~30 ATM, possibly up to 40 in the foreseable future)
> that makes more sense than doing it all ourselves...
> I'd really love to hear your thoughts on the matter, and also
> if you could comment/recommend any service providers you'd
> make my life considerably easier ;)
> In any case, thanks again for reading this far and bearing
> with my ramblings.
> Happy Christmas for all ;)
>   Javier Jarava
> On 05/12/06, Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hosted SBS with Outlook 2003
> >
> > Office Live
> >
> > Not 2003 without a SBS box on the backend but 2007 uses
> Office Live to
> > share calendars.
> >
> > 40 people and you don't have a server... wow.....the
> control freak in
> > me is freaking out.  We put SBS servers in at 5 to 10
> people and even less.
> >
> > Shared calendars pushes the sale of many a SBS box.... I
> don't know of
> > non MS solutions.
> >
> >
> > Javier Jarava wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > Sorry if this question is a bit off-topic to the list,
> but I've seen
> > > some Exchange-related questions here, so I know there is Exchange
> > > expertise hanging around ;) and I didn't know where to
> ask; please
> > > feel free to point me to the proper forums (forii?) to ask in.
> > >
> > > I am looking for a way to implement shared calendars "a
> la exchange"
> > > (ie, they have to be "visible" and used from within
> Outlook 2003),
> > > but without actually using/hosting an Exchange Server
> ourselves. The
> > > idea is that people should be able to see/manage the
> calendar of the
> > > people they manage, so free/busy info is not enough. And
> the "outlook"
> > > requisite is a must (as my CEO put it yesterday: "I live within
> > > Outlook; I don't want to meddle with web apps or the like)
> > >
> > > I know that it's a bit odd of a requisite, but we are a
> small co. (~
> > > 40 employees) and the president feels that having to babysit a
> > > server in-house is a bit of a needless burden.
> > >
> > > At present we host our email / web presence / customer ticketing
> > > system in a pair of VPS from Verio, so if the proposed solution
> > > could run on top of FreeBSD it'd be a big plus ;)
> > >
> > > Of course (now going for the "and ask about the
> KitchenSink" part ;)
> > > if we could put it into place without having to tweak our email
> > > setup that'd be wonderful!!.
> > >
> > > We understand that we'd probably have to install some Outlook
> > > plugin, so that's OK...
> > >
> > > If there is no way to have the "Shared Calendar" feature as a
> > > stand-alone service/server, I guess the next step would be to ask
> > > those of you who know Exchange for an "exchange clone"
> that runs on
> > > FreeBDS / Unix..... Or last but not least, I guess that
> there must
> > > be "hosted Exchange" providers out there that you can recommend.
> > > That'd mean re-doing our mail system, but I guess that we
> could live
> > > with it, if need be.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot for those of you who have read this far.
> > >
> > >  Best Regards
> > >
> > >  Javier Jarava
> > > List info   :
> > > List FAQ    :
> > > List archive:
> > >
> > >
> > List info   :
> > List FAQ    :
> > List archive:
> >
> >
> List info   :
> List FAQ    :
> List archive:

This email, and any files transmitted with it, is confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. As a public body, the Council may be required to disclose this 
email,  or any response to it,  under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, 
unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act.

If you receive this email in error please notify Stockport e-Services via 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and then permanently remove it from your system.

Thank you.

List info   :
List FAQ    :
List archive:

Reply via email to