Exchange, calendaring and IMAP [ mostly off-topic ]

[Ben Scott]

On 4/21/05, Paul Lussier <p.lussier at comcast.net> wrote:
> Does anyone hear know if Exchange can be used *only* as an
> addressbook/calendar server, while e-mail was maintained on an open
> IMAP server?

  Well, Exchange will still have mail server capabilities, but there's
nothing forcing you to use them.  It's more of a client issue. 
Outlook versions 2002 (Office XP) and later support having an Exchange
server along with some number of POP, IMAP, and LDAP servers.

  (Outlook 2000 and earlier can either do Exchange, or IMAP, but not
both at once.  This shouldn't be a problem, as your Exchange client
license seats also include a license for the latest Outlook.)

  One thing to be aware of is that Outlook will only keep "Sent Items"
and "Drafts" in a MAPI store -- you can't put them on an IMAP server. 
In practical terms, this means they go in a PST file or on an Exchange
server.  So put them on the Exchange server -- PST files are bad, bad,
bad.

  You should be aware that Exchange will not function properly without
a working Active Directory *and* a proper NetBIOS namespace.

> Someone here mentioned we should just leave the windows weenies alone
> as far as e-mail is concerned, and let them do their calendar/addressbooks
> on Exchange.

  Whether or not this is the right thing to do depends heavily on the
specifics of your environment.  In practice, if one is going to use
Outlook as a mail program and PIM, it often makes the most sense to
use Exchange as the server back-end for it.  It should be no surprise
to anyone that Outlook really works a lot better with an Exchange
server.  It should be possible to setup a subdomain, or mail
forwarding, or whatever, to keep both systems working together.

  OTOH, keeping all your mail in one place might make more sense,
especially if you have things like an existing webmail or other
software that talks to that server.  I can't tell you which is right
for your organization.  :)

> I requested of a few people suggestions for a hostname

  I've always liked "monopoly" for a Microsoft server name.

  I do hope, for your sake, that whoever this gig has been
"outsourced" to knows what they are doing.  As everyone who uses the
'net these days knows, an improperly administered Windows computer is
a recipe for disaster, and people who know how to do it properly are
apparently few and far between.