I like to ask people why they want state of the art software to support 20
year old protocols when superior options exist.

------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity
Atlanta, GA


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aaron Brasslett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:40 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Arguments against POP3
> 
> 
> Well, I think you are taking it too literally.  While PST 
> files themselves
> have some unique problems, the real basis as to why PST=BAD 
> is that storing
> email on local storage systems is not good. This is not good 
> for the same
> reasons why you would not have someone store their files on their hard
> drive... They should be stored on a file server.  As such, 
> email should be
> stored on an email server and not a local hard drive.
> 
> IMAP4, while is not as good of a solution as OWA, is better 
> than POP3 in
> that email folders can be stored on the server.
> 
> Aaron
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Depp, Dennis M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:26 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Arguments against POP3
> 
> 
> Perhaps I missed something.  I see a chapter on why not to 
> use .pst files,
> but nothing against using POP3.  I dismissed the comment of 
> POP3=Administor
> Slothfulness.  I understand POP3=PST if you are using 
> Outlook, but there are
> other email clients that support POP3 and do not use PST files.
> 
> Dennis Depp
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Blackstone [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 11:17 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Arguments against POP3
> 
> 
> http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Clishe, Jason [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 8:14 AM
> To: NT 2000 Discussions
> Subject: RE: Arguments against POP3
> 
> 
> Where is the Swynk Exchange list FAQ? I've been poking around 
> the site and
> have not been able to find it. Searched for "FAQ" and for 
> "POP3" and neither
> search turned up anything.
> 
> Jason
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steve Molkentin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 12:44 AM
> > To: NT 2000 Discussions
> > Subject: RE: Arguments against POP3
> > 
> > 
> > Tony,
> > 
> > The Swynk Exchange list has a whole chapter on WHY NOT TO 
> USE POP3 in 
> > their FAQ - built by people who know. In fact, I've used 
> info from the 
> > FAQ as grounds for supporting an argument many times... it 
> is a great 
> > place to get all the know-how.
> > 
> > Bottom line - if you want to have backups (and effective 
> ones at that) 
> > of your company's mail, do not use POP3 for the client. 
> They can/will 
> > password protect them, rendering them useless; they can/will 
> > accidentally delete their *.pst containing their history of 
> mail and 
> > come looking for the non-existent back up; etc, etc, etc.
> > 
> > Exchange running SMTP is the only way to go as far as I am 
> concerned - 
> > even in the move from 5.5 to 2K.
> > 
> > If I can help any more, I'm glad to. That's what I like about this 
> > list - so many willing, intelligent, 'been there before' 
> people that 
> > are happy to share the info.
> > 
> > My $0.02 (inc GST).
> > 
> > themolk.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Tony Valiantis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2003 11:55 AM
> > > To: NT 2000 Discussions
> > > Subject: Arguments against POP3
> > > 
> > > 
> > > We are migrating from Exchange 5.5 to Exchange 2000. As part of
> > > this, we have provided OWA for our remote users.
> > > 
> > > Almost everyone is happy with this except a few PITA 
> users who are 
> > > whinging about losing the POP3 we used to provide on Exchange 5.5
> > > 
> > > I don't want to provide POP3 as I would like to close 
> that port and
> > > not offer the service, but I am looking for some valid arguments
> > > that I can
> > > use to argue against higher management when these users go 
> > complaining
> > > to them.
> > > 
> > > Can anyone provide me with something I can use to build a
> > case against
> > > POP3 access.
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > Tony.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Tony Valiantis
> > > Project Coordinator
> > > Systems Engineering Group
> > > UNiTAB Ltd.
> > > 
> > > ------
> > > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> > > 
> > 
> > ------
> > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> > 
> 
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> 
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> 
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> 
> ------
> You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to %%email.unsub%%
> 

------
You are subscribed as [email protected]
Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to