On 3/15/06 10:30:52 AM, "Swenson, Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Because the database is big, and it's redundant. It pushes people over quota > and the information it contains is already in our Exchange database. It sounds to me like you should be using OWA then. Your blanket statement about it "not working" should be "it doesn't work the way I would prefer it to". >>> One of these days I'd like to hear the real reason why Entourage lacks MAPI. >> >> Plain and simple, Entourage was initially designed to not be Outlook. It was >> an explicit goal to not be Outlook for the Mac. There was an Outlook for the >> Mac. When Outlook for Mac was killed, Entourage had to pick up the ball. At >> this point, MAPI is not the best solution for that. >> > How is working with live Exchange data, rather than redundant and insecure > synching, not a good thing? Again, this is the way that you want it to work, not the way it's designed to work. The biggest reasons to cache data are speed, scale, and bandwidth intensity. Outlook for Windows, by default, works exactly like Entourage does, albeit using a different protocol. -- To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.letterrip.com/> old-archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
