RE: somewhat OT
And what criminal statute did they violate exactly, Mr. Deckler, Esq.? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 2:11 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT I think that the big piece that is being missed in all of this is Microsoft's licensing of Exchange for hosting companies versus businesses. What Microsoft did with its licensing is nothing short of criminal in my opinion. What Microsoft did was allow hosting providers to only may very minimal fees for POP/IMAP/HTTP mailbox licenses. They have never offered such a deal to businesses, for a business whether you access an Exchange mailbox via POP, IMAP, HTTP or MAPI (CDO) you have to pay full price for you Exchange CAL. Someone show me where this is just not a blatant rip-off. Microsoft was forced to do this because of the high level of competition in the hosted email environment from POP/IMAP/HTTP email software products. And this theorectically offered some significant advantages to outsourced Exchange because if the company only need full-featured Exchange mailboxes for a sub-set of their employees, they could save significant licensing dollars by having it hosted and only paying POP/IMAP/HTTP license dollars for mailboxes that did not require the full features of Exchange, but all of those mailboxes would exist on a single Exchange system. If they tried to do this in-house, they would have to pay full Exchange CAL's for all of their mailboxes, regardless of the method of access. Again, my opinion of this is that it is nothing short of criminal action on the part of Microsoft to gouge corporations. There really is some attractive licensing for ASPs in E2K. It's not perfect yet, but with a couple of moderate changes on Microsoft's part an aggressive ASP could likely provide Exchange very competitively to businesses of a variety of sizes. That being said, the track record for ASPs in general hasn't been all that great as of late, but in many cases I'd attribute that to the business model of the individual ASP rather than the ASP business model as a whole. From the perspective of a potential customer, my distinction may be irrelevant, but it's still true. There are some companies which can and do run Exchange quite efficiently and reliably in house. Course, I suspect there might be others where this isn't the case and ASPs can have greater resonance on a number of levels beside price. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions I'd disagree with your second comment - but I'm also not really going to argue the point, considering where you work. The fact remains that just about every player in that space has gone out of business. Whether because the product wasn't ready, the market wasn't ready, or the business model didn't fit is irrelevant. I'm still not convinced that the hosted model for core applications makes sense. All this is after seeing proposals from some big ASPs for Siebel and PeopleSoft as well. Hands down, we could do it cheaper and better inhouse - in both a 500 person and 4000 person company. Which takes me back to my original point - core applications for medium to large enterprises aren't appropriate for outsourcing, but small companies are ripe for the taking in that space. The problem is that no one wants to deal with smaller companies because of the overhead in managing a larger number of smaller volume clients. However, there are a number of areas in which highly specialized knowledge is required to perform a specific function, and that knowledge is too expensive and too rare for most companies to hire. Those are the functions for which outsourcing makes sense. For instance, HIPAA[1] compliance in information systems. There are a relatively small number of people who understand the laws, and understand the technical requirements of those laws. Most of them are able to charge in the 5-6 figure range, PER WEEK, for consulting at this point. And there is a hard deadline for compliance. But I digress. In the end, it comes back to what is core IT functionality and what isn't. I've always contended that email is core functionality. File, Print, AV, Backup and Email. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] A US law that institutes stringent requirements on the management of medical and insurance records. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:44 PM
RE: somewhat OT
I'd disagree with your second comment - but I'm also not really going to argue the point, considering where you work. The fact remains that just about every player in that space has gone out of business. Whether because the product wasn't ready, the market wasn't ready, or the business model didn't fit is irrelevant. I'm still not convinced that the hosted model for core applications makes sense. All this is after seeing proposals from some big ASPs for Siebel and PeopleSoft as well. Hands down, we could do it cheaper and better inhouse - in both a 500 person and 4000 person company. Which takes me back to my original point - core applications for medium to large enterprises aren't appropriate for outsourcing, but small companies are ripe for the taking in that space. The problem is that no one wants to deal with smaller companies because of the overhead in managing a larger number of smaller volume clients. However, there are a number of areas in which highly specialized knowledge is required to perform a specific function, and that knowledge is too expensive and too rare for most companies to hire. Those are the functions for which outsourcing makes sense. For instance, HIPAA[1] compliance in information systems. There are a relatively small number of people who understand the laws, and understand the technical requirements of those laws. Most of them are able to charge in the 5-6 figure range, PER WEEK, for consulting at this point. And there is a hard deadline for compliance. But I digress. In the end, it comes back to what is core IT functionality and what isn't. I've always contended that email is core functionality. File, Print, AV, Backup and Email. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] A US law that institutes stringent requirements on the management of medical and insurance records. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT True. But many companies just think that they can install it [on a workstation-class PC] and let it hum in the corner. Some of them don't even suspect that there is Exchange-aware backup. Also with Exchange 2000, Microsoft made hosting licensing more attractive than regular licensing. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging
RE: somewhat OT
Well, MAPI Outlook was really not ready for hosting. Microsoft thought that most customers would be happy with OWA. Hopefully Microsoft has learned its lesson the hard way. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT I'd disagree with your second comment - but I'm also not really going to argue the point, considering where you work. The fact remains that just about every player in that space has gone out of business. Whether because the product wasn't ready, the market wasn't ready, or the business model didn't fit is irrelevant. I'm still not convinced that the hosted model for core applications makes sense. All this is after seeing proposals from some big ASPs for Siebel and PeopleSoft as well. Hands down, we could do it cheaper and better inhouse - in both a 500 person and 4000 person company. Which takes me back to my original point - core applications for medium to large enterprises aren't appropriate for outsourcing, but small companies are ripe for the taking in that space. The problem is that no one wants to deal with smaller companies because of the overhead in managing a larger number of smaller volume clients. However, there are a number of areas in which highly specialized knowledge is required to perform a specific function, and that knowledge is too expensive and too rare for most companies to hire. Those are the functions for which outsourcing makes sense. For instance, HIPAA[1] compliance in information systems. There are a relatively small number of people who understand the laws, and understand the technical requirements of those laws. Most of them are able to charge in the 5-6 figure range, PER WEEK, for consulting at this point. And there is a hard deadline for compliance. But I digress. In the end, it comes back to what is core IT functionality and what isn't. I've always contended that email is core functionality. File, Print, AV, Backup and Email. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] A US law that institutes stringent requirements on the management of medical and insurance records. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT True. But many companies just think that they can install it [on a workstation-class PC] and let it hum in the corner. Some of them don't even suspect that there is Exchange-aware backup. Also with Exchange 2000, Microsoft made hosting licensing more attractive than regular licensing. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its
RE: somewhat OT
There really is some attractive licensing for ASPs in E2K. It's not perfect yet, but with a couple of moderate changes on Microsoft's part an aggressive ASP could likely provide Exchange very competitively to businesses of a variety of sizes. That being said, the track record for ASPs in general hasn't been all that great as of late, but in many cases I'd attribute that to the business model of the individual ASP rather than the ASP business model as a whole. From the perspective of a potential customer, my distinction may be irrelevant, but it's still true. There are some companies which can and do run Exchange quite efficiently and reliably in house. Course, I suspect there might be others where this isn't the case and ASPs can have greater resonance on a number of levels beside price. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions I'd disagree with your second comment - but I'm also not really going to argue the point, considering where you work. The fact remains that just about every player in that space has gone out of business. Whether because the product wasn't ready, the market wasn't ready, or the business model didn't fit is irrelevant. I'm still not convinced that the hosted model for core applications makes sense. All this is after seeing proposals from some big ASPs for Siebel and PeopleSoft as well. Hands down, we could do it cheaper and better inhouse - in both a 500 person and 4000 person company. Which takes me back to my original point - core applications for medium to large enterprises aren't appropriate for outsourcing, but small companies are ripe for the taking in that space. The problem is that no one wants to deal with smaller companies because of the overhead in managing a larger number of smaller volume clients. However, there are a number of areas in which highly specialized knowledge is required to perform a specific function, and that knowledge is too expensive and too rare for most companies to hire. Those are the functions for which outsourcing makes sense. For instance, HIPAA[1] compliance in information systems. There are a relatively small number of people who understand the laws, and understand the technical requirements of those laws. Most of them are able to charge in the 5-6 figure range, PER WEEK, for consulting at this point. And there is a hard deadline for compliance. But I digress. In the end, it comes back to what is core IT functionality and what isn't. I've always contended that email is core functionality. File, Print, AV, Backup and Email. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] A US law that institutes stringent requirements on the management of medical and insurance records. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT True. But many companies just think that they can install it [on a workstation-class PC] and let it hum in the corner. Some of them don't even suspect that there is Exchange-aware backup. Also with Exchange 2000, Microsoft made hosting licensing more attractive than regular licensing. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce
RE: somewhat OT
I think that the big piece that is being missed in all of this is Microsoft's licensing of Exchange for hosting companies versus businesses. What Microsoft did with its licensing is nothing short of criminal in my opinion. What Microsoft did was allow hosting providers to only may very minimal fees for POP/IMAP/HTTP mailbox licenses. They have never offered such a deal to businesses, for a business whether you access an Exchange mailbox via POP, IMAP, HTTP or MAPI (CDO) you have to pay full price for you Exchange CAL. Someone show me where this is just not a blatant rip-off. Microsoft was forced to do this because of the high level of competition in the hosted email environment from POP/IMAP/HTTP email software products. And this theorectically offered some significant advantages to outsourced Exchange because if the company only need full-featured Exchange mailboxes for a sub-set of their employees, they could save significant licensing dollars by having it hosted and only paying POP/IMAP/HTTP license dollars for mailboxes that did not require the full features of Exchange, but all of those mailboxes would exist on a single Exchange system. If they tried to do this in-house, they would have to pay full Exchange CAL's for all of their mailboxes, regardless of the method of access. Again, my opinion of this is that it is nothing short of criminal action on the part of Microsoft to gouge corporations. There really is some attractive licensing for ASPs in E2K. It's not perfect yet, but with a couple of moderate changes on Microsoft's part an aggressive ASP could likely provide Exchange very competitively to businesses of a variety of sizes. That being said, the track record for ASPs in general hasn't been all that great as of late, but in many cases I'd attribute that to the business model of the individual ASP rather than the ASP business model as a whole. From the perspective of a potential customer, my distinction may be irrelevant, but it's still true. There are some companies which can and do run Exchange quite efficiently and reliably in house. Course, I suspect there might be others where this isn't the case and ASPs can have greater resonance on a number of levels beside price. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 6:29 AM To: Exchange Discussions I'd disagree with your second comment - but I'm also not really going to argue the point, considering where you work. The fact remains that just about every player in that space has gone out of business. Whether because the product wasn't ready, the market wasn't ready, or the business model didn't fit is irrelevant. I'm still not convinced that the hosted model for core applications makes sense. All this is after seeing proposals from some big ASPs for Siebel and PeopleSoft as well. Hands down, we could do it cheaper and better inhouse - in both a 500 person and 4000 person company. Which takes me back to my original point - core applications for medium to large enterprises aren't appropriate for outsourcing, but small companies are ripe for the taking in that space. The problem is that no one wants to deal with smaller companies because of the overhead in managing a larger number of smaller volume clients. However, there are a number of areas in which highly specialized knowledge is required to perform a specific function, and that knowledge is too expensive and too rare for most companies to hire. Those are the functions for which outsourcing makes sense. For instance, HIPAA[1] compliance in information systems. There are a relatively small number of people who understand the laws, and understand the technical requirements of those laws. Most of them are able to charge in the 5-6 figure range, PER WEEK, for consulting at this point. And there is a hard deadline for compliance. But I digress. In the end, it comes back to what is core IT functionality and what isn't. I've always contended that email is core functionality. File, Print, AV, Backup and Email. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] A US law that institutes stringent requirements on the management of medical and insurance records. -Original Message- From: Andrey Fyodorov [mailto:afyodorov;innerhost.com] Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 4:44 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT True. But many companies just think that they can install it [on a workstation-class PC] and let it hum in the corner. Some of them don't even suspect that there is Exchange-aware backup. Also with Exchange 2000, Microsoft made hosting licensing more attractive than regular licensing. -Original Message- From
RE: somewhat OT
True. But many companies just think that they can install it [on a workstation-class PC] and let it hum in the corner. Some of them don't even suspect that there is Exchange-aware backup. Also with Exchange 2000, Microsoft made hosting licensing more attractive than regular licensing. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:15 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
You don't have to wait 10 years. There is that thingie out there, called MiraPoint. It is supposed to be e-mail in a box. -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:craig.dupler;boeing.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all
RE: somewhat OT
By the same token not too many people really save money by leasing cars vs financing them. However there are some benefits like being able to change cars every few years or giving a car back when it is not on warranty anymore. Same thing with hosting Exchange. Do it for a few months, don't like it? - pick up and go to another host and/or e-mail platform. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT I don't think too many companies really end up saving any money outsourcing. And how many of the hosting companies' failures were seamless to their customers? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
Some of the subscribers herein can tell you how easy that was when their hosting service went under and they had 24 hours to go get their mail. Ed Crowley MCSE+I MVP Technical Consultant hp Services There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2002 1:50 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT By the same token not too many people really save money by leasing cars vs financing them. However there are some benefits like being able to change cars every few years or giving a car back when it is not on warranty anymore. Same thing with hosting Exchange. Do it for a few months, don't like it? - pick up and go to another host and/or e-mail platform. -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT I don't think too many companies really end up saving any money outsourcing. And how many of the hosting companies' failures were seamless to their customers? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
To be kept in the life style that you wish to become accustomed to. g -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Who knows? I'd love to retire today. If I can only convince my wife to work full-time! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT You're gonna be around that long Ed? I figured you'd be retiring in about 5 years! ;0) (g, dr) Jim Blunt E-mail Admin Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Office: 372-9188 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT This presumes that the function of e-mail remains stagnant. If it doesn't, the pure hardware box has to chase a moving target, which is not an easy thing to do. Doesn't just about every company that has a hardware firewall also have a firewall administrator? Not that any of your forecasts scare me. I'm retiring within 20 years. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major
RE: somewhat OT
Not so much me--I have two kids. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Schwartz, Jim Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 5:57 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT To be kept in the life style that you wish to become accustomed to. g -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 8:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Who knows? I'd love to retire today. If I can only convince my wife to work full-time! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT You're gonna be around that long Ed? I figured you'd be retiring in about 5 years! ;0) (g, dr) Jim Blunt E-mail Admin Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Office: 372-9188 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT This presumes that the function of e-mail remains stagnant. If it doesn't, the pure hardware box has to chase a moving target, which is not an easy thing to do. Doesn't just about every company that has a hardware firewall also have a firewall administrator? Not that any of your forecasts scare me. I'm retiring within 20 years. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr
RE: somewhat OT
You're gonna be around that long Ed? I figured you'd be retiring in about 5 years! ;0) (g, dr) Jim Blunt E-mail Admin Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Office: 372-9188 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT This presumes that the function of e-mail remains stagnant. If it doesn't, the pure hardware box has to chase a moving target, which is not an easy thing to do. Doesn't just about every company that has a hardware firewall also have a firewall administrator? Not that any of your forecasts scare me. I'm retiring within 20 years. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic
RE: somewhat OT
Why in the world would you not make this a seamless service? To not do so effectively ruins any advantages of going this route (splitting mailboxes between Exchange and POP/IMAP systems depending on level of service required) And besides, it is a cakewalk to do in Exchange or go buy yourself the Bat book from OReilly and configure it that way. Come on. We provide Exchange for $9.95 per month per mailbox. We also provide = Imail (POP3/IMAP) as a part of Web hosting or SQL DB hosting package. We do not split a customer's domain name between Exchange and Imail. To = have a seamless service, all mailboxes have to be either on Exchange or = on Imail. Yes, we could design all kinds of forwarding tricks, but = that's too much overhead if one is dealing with tens of thousands of = customers. To offer POP3/IMAP on Exchange is an overkill, Imail can handle those = better for MUCH less money. Although some customers sign up for Exchange = and pay $9.95 and only use POP3. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has = pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not = enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But = the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In = addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a = mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. = So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=3D20 =20 USA.NET? MI8?=3D20 Critical Path? =20 others?=3D20 =20 j Regards,=3D20 =20 =20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
Just because it is technically possible do so, does not make it economically desirable to do so. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 3:24 PM To: Exchange Discussions Why in the world would you not make this a seamless service? To not do so effectively ruins any advantages of going this route (splitting mailboxes between Exchange and POP/IMAP systems depending on level of service required) And besides, it is a cakewalk to do in Exchange or go buy yourself the Bat book from OReilly and configure it that way. Come on. We provide Exchange for $9.95 per month per mailbox. We also provide = Imail (POP3/IMAP) as a part of Web hosting or SQL DB hosting package. We do not split a customer's domain name between Exchange and Imail. To = have a seamless service, all mailboxes have to be either on Exchange or = on Imail. Yes, we could design all kinds of forwarding tricks, but = that's too much overhead if one is dealing with tens of thousands of = customers. To offer POP3/IMAP on Exchange is an overkill, Imail can handle those = better for MUCH less money. Although some customers sign up for Exchange = and pay $9.95 and only use POP3. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has = pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not = enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But = the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In = addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a = mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. = So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=3D20 =20 USA.NET? MI8?=3D20 Critical Path? =20 others?=3D20 =20 j Regards,=3D20 =20 =20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
I don't think too many companies really end up saving any money outsourcing. And how many of the hosting companies' failures were seamless to their customers? Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 9:25 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
Who knows? I'd love to retire today. If I can only convince my wife to work full-time! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT You're gonna be around that long Ed? I figured you'd be retiring in about 5 years! ;0) (g, dr) Jim Blunt E-mail Admin Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Office: 372-9188 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT This presumes that the function of e-mail remains stagnant. If it doesn't, the pure hardware box has to chase a moving target, which is not an easy thing to do. Doesn't just about every company that has a hardware firewall also have a firewall administrator? Not that any of your forecasts scare me. I'm retiring within 20 years. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange
RE: somewhat OT
Speak to me offline. :o) William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Ed Crowley Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:32 PM To: Exchange Discussions Who knows? I'd love to retire today. If I can only convince my wife to work full-time! Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Blunt, James H (Jim) Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 9:54 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT You're gonna be around that long Ed? I figured you'd be retiring in about 5 years! ;0) (g, dr) Jim Blunt E-mail Admin Network Infrastructure Group Bechtel Hanford, Inc. Office: 372-9188 -Original Message- From: Ed Crowley [mailto:curspice;pacbell.net] Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 7:59 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT This presumes that the function of e-mail remains stagnant. If it doesn't, the pure hardware box has to chase a moving target, which is not an easy thing to do. Doesn't just about every company that has a hardware firewall also have a firewall administrator? Not that any of your forecasts scare me. I'm retiring within 20 years. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players
RE: somewhat OT
This presumes that the function of e-mail remains stagnant. If it doesn't, the pure hardware box has to chase a moving target, which is not an easy thing to do. Doesn't just about every company that has a hardware firewall also have a firewall administrator? Not that any of your forecasts scare me. I'm retiring within 20 years. Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I Tech Consultant hp Services Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-94760;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's
RE: somewhat OT
iNNERHOST - http://www.innerhost.com -Original Message- From: Henley, John K (Johnny), METRO [mailto:jkhenley;att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: somewhat OT Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game? USA.NET? MI8? Critical Path? others? j Regards, John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: somewhat OT
You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
We provide Exchange for $9.95 per month per mailbox. We also provide Imail (POP3/IMAP) as a part of Web hosting or SQL DB hosting package. We do not split a customer's domain name between Exchange and Imail. To have a seamless service, all mailboxes have to be either on Exchange or on Imail. Yes, we could design all kinds of forwarding tricks, but that's too much overhead if one is dealing with tens of thousands of customers. To offer POP3/IMAP on Exchange is an overkill, Imail can handle those better for MUCH less money. Although some customers sign up for Exchange and pay $9.95 and only use POP3. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
I don't think this marked has failed. We get new orders for Exchange hosting all the time. Shared Exchange hosting has some limitations compared to running in-house Exchange server. So those who can run it in-house and do not want to deal with limitations, choose to not host. Although many of them only think that they know how to run it in-house, before their first disaster. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
You hit the nail on the head on this answer. I would like to add one more word to it. Control If it is in-house you have (at least perceptional) better or more control over what is happening with what has become a critical business application. Scott -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship, companies would really be looking to outsource anything and everything they can in order to lower costs. If outsourced corporate messaging can't make it in today's economy, I have serious doubts that it will ever make it. But the question is why? Outsourced messaging holds the promise of lower costs, flexibility and the ability to focus on one's core business. In addition, many of the outsourced providers can put together systems that have a mix of high-end and low-end mailbox services that are all tied together as a single system. This means that companies can have Exchange mailboxes for those that need it and low-cost IMAP/POP mailboxes for everyone else and the outsourcer ties it all together to look like a single email system. So why did this market fail? Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game?=20 USA.NET? MI8?=20 Critical Path? others?=20 j Regards,=20 John Henley
RE: somewhat OT
Bandwidth, oh bandwidth where art thou... Sliding to the heavens on a VSAT beam. John Matteson Geac Corporate ISS (404) 239 - 2981 Atlanta, Georgia, USA. -Original Message- From: Sander Van Butzelaar [mailto:sander;korbi.net] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:27 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT We are, we cover South Africa and some sub-Sahara African countries. You don't want to know how many people they stick on a 64 k line on this continent...:-) Bandwidth, oh bandwidth where art thou... Sander Korbi.net -Original Message- From: Henley, John K (Johnny), METRO [mailto:jkhenley;att.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 09:29 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: somewhat OT Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game? USA.NET? MI8? Critical Path? others? j Regards, John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
That would be cool. They could call it Qube or something. I hope it gets to market before Sun thinks of it. -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:craig.dupler;boeing.com] Posted At: Friday, November 08, 2002 01:30 PM Posted To: MSExchange Mailing List Conversation: somewhat OT Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
I don't disagree with that. That is, in fact, a bit of the tact that the OpenExchange product of another thread follows - you drop the CD in a new box and off it goes - OS, app, etc, all as a single install. I fully expect the evolution of small business boxes to probably accelerate. Things like the Colbalt Cube that are simple, multifunction boxes for sub-full time admin places. But I also see an evolution of remotely managed appliances - where professional admins do remote management of multiple customer's appliances. Roger -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA -Original Message- From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:craig.dupler;boeing.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. The design goal would have to be such that a professional sys admin is not required. My guess is that initially it would be targeted at that same mid-tier that you identify, but perhaps a bit lower (25-100 seats) at first. It has to go that way. If you look at what is happening in networking as a whole, you have companies like LinkSys and D-Link that are almost totally focused on idiot proof boxes for basic functionality. Intel, Nortel and more recently Microsoft have all gone chasing after this space as well. It only makes sense that this space will grow up to include a line of mini-blade or little box headless servers that do all of the basics (mail, telephony, web hosting, etc.). General purpose storage and print servicing is already happening. As we all know, little machines grow up to become big machines. 20 years from now, it is not unreasonable to project that even quite large systems will be simple hardware modules that you add to your pile of network pieces. -Original Message- From: Roger Seielstad [mailto:roger.seielstad;inovis.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:15 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT Simple. Its not cost effective to outsourse at the levels they target. They missed the boat from day one. There is a relative break even point for having your own IT staff, generally in the 25-75 user range, depending on what your company actually does. More than 100 or so, and you really need someone. Once you've got someone inhouse, they tend to have to be a jack-of-all-trades type, and do a lot of fumbling through. But the job gets done. Traditionally, an NT box with Exchange 5.5 Standard wasn't really that expensive - you could probably do that for $10k. Win2k with E2k has raised the prices a bit, but not exhorbinantly such. With leasing options, that server could be a few hundred a month. Like any service provider, the good fruit is in the middle of the tree, not the low hanging stuff. SO they tended to target 500 person plus orgs. This 600-ish person company has 8 sysadmins - we have enough time to manage Exchange. Without it, maybe we'd have one less headcount, but I'd bet that the headcount loss isn't drastically different than the cost of 600 users' outsourced mail needs. Now, the other side of this equation is that email is a core business need for most companies, and isn't that hard to at least get running[1]. More specialized things, like e-commerce and line of business apps make more sense in a managed environment. Email never did. -- Roger D. Seielstad - MCSE Sr. Systems Administrator Inovis - Formerly Harbinger and Extricity Atlanta, GA [1] Running well is a different question, but running and running well aren't the issue here. -Original Message- From: Greg Deckler [mailto:greg;infonition.com] Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 12:25 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Re: somewhat OT You've hit the major players. The entire email hosting business has pretty much flopped and consolidated. Critical Path handed over its hosted corporate messaging services to HP. United Messaging was acquired by Agilera. Commtouch sold its hosted Exchange business to TeleComputing. USA.NET and Mi8 are still hanging in there, for now. But this entire market space has just been decimated of late. I still think that the business case is there for outsourced messaging, but apparently not enough people have the same attitude that I do. Anyone else care to comment on why they think that this market space has flopped? One would think that in a time of economic hardship
RE: somewhat OT
I anticipate the same thing, in less time. I also expect it to be later than comparable products. William -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-104116;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Dupler, Craig Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 11:30 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT So Roger, does this mean that you are getting ready for the sobering messages? First, let me say that I am not privy to any advanced product planning in what I am about to say, and am only speculating. I fully expect to see a pure hardware version of an entry level Exchange Server within ten years. _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
You forgot the **shameless plug** -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bounce-exchange-224131;ls.swynk.com] On Behalf Of Andrey Fyodorov Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 10:12 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: somewhat OT iNNERHOST - http://www.innerhost.com -Original Message- From: Henley, John K (Johnny), METRO [mailto:jkhenley;att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 2:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: somewhat OT Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game? USA.NET? MI8? Critical Path? others? j Regards, John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
www.mail-resources.com | web links -Original Message- From: Henley, John K (Johnny), METRO [mailto:jkhenley;att.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:29 PM To: Exchange Discussions Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game? USA.NET? MI8? Critical Path? others? j Regards, John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: somewhat OT
We are, we cover South Africa and some sub-Sahara African countries. You don't want to know how many people they stick on a 64 k line on this continent...:-) Bandwidth, oh bandwidth where art thou... Sander Korbi.net -Original Message- From: Henley, John K (Johnny), METRO [mailto:jkhenley;att.com] Sent: 06 November 2002 09:29 To: Exchange Discussions Subject: somewhat OT Who all is left in the Hosted E2K (asp-model) game? USA.NET? MI8? Critical Path? others? j Regards, John Henley _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:leave-exchange;ls.swynk.com Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups
I would say do whatever works best for you. 400 groups seems like a lot, but then again, I do not know how you do things on the inside! -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:04 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups I was just using HRO as an example. I'm on a military base and we usually have one global group for each unit that contains all the members of the unit for the dissemination of unit-specific information. Then we create a group for each section of the unit and place the appropriate members into that group. Like my examples, we have some people that need access to specific folders so we have to create groups for those users. Then there's the base-wide groups for when we need to get info to everyone. And on and on. We have about 400 groups total. I'm just curious if that's how it's done on the outside. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command Twentynine Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups Im not sure why you would even need to create a group called HRO Users in this particular case. I'm lazy, so in this example, I would simply apply the different individual user permissions on a folder by folder basis depending on which user required it rather than creating a separate group. I suppose you could always create one HRO Users group that they are all members of and then apply DENY permissions individually to the users who do not need access. On the other hand, if HRO Users represents 10,000 users and each group is a percentage of that, then I would create individual groups for each different area of folder access. This probably didnt answer your question, but then again, while you are thinking of creative ways to apply permissions, Im at home sleeping like a baby. -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Somewhat OT - Global Groups Posted this in a newsgroup and got no response. Thought I'd throw it out here. I know the mantra goes, manage by groups, not individuals. However, I have a question that I'm hoping someone may have some thoughts on. Say I create a group called HRO Users and put the entire section of 8 people in it. Call them Users A through H. I then create four shared folders on my file server and want to give various HRO users access. But not all of them in the HRO Users GG. HRO Management - A, B, C, D HRO Clerks - E, F, G, H HRO IT - A, B, E HRO Exchange - C, D, F Is creating a GG for Each folder the proper/best way to give these people access? I then have to have five GGs for 8 users. A couple more folders and I'm up to a one to one ratio which doesn't seem logical to me. Is there a better way? To make this a little on-topic, I've read that you can manage your PFs using DLs and the same concept. Does anyone do this? Seems like an awful lot of DLs... Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command Twentynine Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email
RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups
Microsoft says that GG are the way to go, but every network is different. If you have an admin that knows how to clean up the structure when someone leaves then managing this situation by individuals would probably be ideal. Oppturnity of Scale. Microsoft doesn't normally recommend a very good practical solutions for situations when the groups are as small as what you are need ing to do. Thanks, Chuck -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Somewhat OT - Global Groups Posted this in a newsgroup and got no response. Thought I'd throw it out here. I know the mantra goes, manage by groups, not individuals. However, I have a question that I'm hoping someone may have some thoughts on. Say I create a group called HRO Users and put the entire section of 8 people in it. Call them Users A through H. I then create four shared folders on my file server and want to give various HRO users access. But not all of them in the HRO Users GG. HRO Management - A, B, C, D HRO Clerks - E, F, G, H HRO IT - A, B, E HRO Exchange - C, D, F Is creating a GG for Each folder the proper/best way to give these people access? I then have to have five GGs for 8 users. A couple more folders and I'm up to a one to one ratio which doesn't seem logical to me. Is there a better way? To make this a little on-topic, I've read that you can manage your PFs using DLs and the same concept. Does anyone do this? Seems like an awful lot of DLs... Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command Twentynine Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups
I was just using HRO as an example. I'm on a military base and we usually have one global group for each unit that contains all the members of the unit for the dissemination of unit-specific information. Then we create a group for each section of the unit and place the appropriate members into that group. Like my examples, we have some people that need access to specific folders so we have to create groups for those users. Then there's the base-wide groups for when we need to get info to everyone. And on and on. We have about 400 groups total. I'm just curious if that's how it's done on the outside. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command Twentynine Palms, CA 92278 -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 6:22 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Somewhat OT - Global Groups Im not sure why you would even need to create a group called HRO Users in this particular case. I'm lazy, so in this example, I would simply apply the different individual user permissions on a folder by folder basis depending on which user required it rather than creating a separate group. I suppose you could always create one HRO Users group that they are all members of and then apply DENY permissions individually to the users who do not need access. On the other hand, if HRO Users represents 10,000 users and each group is a percentage of that, then I would create individual groups for each different area of folder access. This probably didnt answer your question, but then again, while you are thinking of creative ways to apply permissions, Im at home sleeping like a baby. -Original Message- From: Parrnelli GS11 Ben T [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2002 7:30 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Somewhat OT - Global Groups Posted this in a newsgroup and got no response. Thought I'd throw it out here. I know the mantra goes, manage by groups, not individuals. However, I have a question that I'm hoping someone may have some thoughts on. Say I create a group called HRO Users and put the entire section of 8 people in it. Call them Users A through H. I then create four shared folders on my file server and want to give various HRO users access. But not all of them in the HRO Users GG. HRO Management - A, B, C, D HRO Clerks - E, F, G, H HRO IT - A, B, E HRO Exchange - C, D, F Is creating a GG for Each folder the proper/best way to give these people access? I then have to have five GGs for 8 users. A couple more folders and I'm up to a one to one ratio which doesn't seem logical to me. Is there a better way? To make this a little on-topic, I've read that you can manage your PFs using DLs and the same concept. Does anyone do this? Seems like an awful lot of DLs... Thanks. Ben Parrnelli Network Administrator Comm Data Directorate MAGTF Training Command Twentynine Palms, CA 92278 _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer?
That's all you need to do.create a zone for your domain name on granitecanyon and change the SOA for your zone at the place you bought your domain name from. Also make sure you make some sort of a donation to granite canyon, it doesn't matter how much because they provide us with a great service..FREE DNS. -Original Message- From: Jeremy Pinquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Somewhat OT: DNS transer? I realize this post is a bit OT, but put it under the heading: minimize missed mail! we got into a tiff with our webhosting company over the DNS hostfile, and are thinking about using granitecanyon. If i want to make the public nameserver at granitecanyon authoritative, does the previous authoritative nameserver need to do anything, or do i simply update our registration info? The goal here is to keep e-mail flowing the entire time. Reply offlist to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think this is too off-topic... Thx, Jeremy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer?
I use ZoneEdit. Its free for up to 5 zones: http://www.zoneedit.com Its much easier to use the GraniteCanyon although I havent used Granite Canyon in a couple years. Mike -Original Message- From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer? That's all you need to do.create a zone for your domain name on granitecanyon and change the SOA for your zone at the place you bought your domain name from. Also make sure you make some sort of a donation to granite canyon, it doesn't matter how much because they provide us with a great service..FREE DNS. -Original Message- From: Jeremy Pinquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Somewhat OT: DNS transer? I realize this post is a bit OT, but put it under the heading: minimize missed mail! we got into a tiff with our webhosting company over the DNS hostfile, and are thinking about using granitecanyon. If i want to make the public nameserver at granitecanyon authoritative, does the previous authoritative nameserver need to do anything, or do i simply update our registration info? The goal here is to keep e-mail flowing the entire time. Reply offlist to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think this is too off-topic... Thx, Jeremy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer?
Ya but granite canyon was one of the first free dns servers. Zoneedit is good too, but I tend to use independent people doing a good thing like granitecanyon. -Original Message- From: Mike Carlson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 8:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer? I use ZoneEdit. Its free for up to 5 zones: http://www.zoneedit.com Its much easier to use the GraniteCanyon although I havent used Granite Canyon in a couple years. Mike -Original Message- From: kanee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 7:39 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: Somewhat OT: DNS transer? That's all you need to do.create a zone for your domain name on granitecanyon and change the SOA for your zone at the place you bought your domain name from. Also make sure you make some sort of a donation to granite canyon, it doesn't matter how much because they provide us with a great service..FREE DNS. -Original Message- From: Jeremy Pinquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 3:16 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: Somewhat OT: DNS transer? I realize this post is a bit OT, but put it under the heading: minimize missed mail! we got into a tiff with our webhosting company over the DNS hostfile, and are thinking about using granitecanyon. If i want to make the public nameserver at granitecanyon authoritative, does the previous authoritative nameserver need to do anything, or do i simply update our registration info? The goal here is to keep e-mail flowing the entire time. Reply offlist to [EMAIL PROTECTED] if you think this is too off-topic... Thx, Jeremy _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
