R. Scott Perry wrote: > I personally feel that the NIC drivers should "just work", and that there > shouldn't be any problems with any NIC (whether due to an issue with the > driver or with IMail).
So do I, but many members have reported that the more "powerful" a NIC is, the likelier that problems may arise. Even Ipswitch Support seems to back up this claim, whether it is founded or not. The issue seems to be restricted to IMail if I go by past testimonials; e.g., everything else on the server is markedly improved by using a "server-grade" gigabit NIC -- except IMail. Thus my [unsubstantiated] hunch that IMail may not play nice with high-end NICs. > However, I've seen an IMail server that processed about 100MB of E-mail a > day with a $5 D-Link (aka "Cheap home brand") NIC card with any > connectivity issues. That's not to say that using cheap NIC cards is a > good idea on a server, but it does go to show that a properly designed > product (regardless of price) can do a great job even without "server" in > the label. Agreed. This is why I tried to downplay "SERVER" in a NIC's name. I was not saying that one should go with a D-Link on a production mail server; rather that some "average" NICs � la 3C509b are perhaps better suited as far as *IMail* is concerned. > On the other hand, there are times where a "server" label makes a world of > difference. For example, U.S. Robotics made one of the best modems in the > world (Couriers) as well as some junky modems for home users (Sportsters) > that would be terrible to use on a server. Yes, but the archives show that *older* U.S. Robotics Couriers work better with the Mail-to-Fax add-on, as I alluded to in my posting. (I agree that you don't want a Sportster in there.) Guy To Unsubscribe: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html List Archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/ Knowledge Base/FAQ: http://www.ipswitch.com/support/IMail/
