Help me avoid Exchange

[Dan Jenkins]

Ben Scott wrote:

>  Security: I've never seen a properly administered Exchange server
>get "owned" or anything like that.  The security issues are all on the
>client side.
>  
>
Actually I've had to repair several, however, it is unclear to me that 
they were "properly administered" since we were brought it to deal with 
the problem that the in-house administrator for each couldn't. ;-) There 
have been several security flaws which went unpatched for quite a few 
months, during which, even a properly administered server could have 
been "owned."

>  Exception: OWA (Outlook Web Access) is a big exposure
>
Definitely isolate it from the rest.

But, as Ben Scott said,

>  That being said, if the IT department already pays for all of that,
>the cost issues evaporate.  That sounds like what Mr. VP is saying:
>Why are we paying for email when we could get it "for free"?  If it's
>IT's problem, then it doesn't matter *what* they're running on the server.
>  
>
That all becomes IT's problem. It only becomes Engineering's problem 
again if IT flubs it somehow.
As long as IT provides an acceptable SLA for Engineering (one that 
Engineering is willing to live
with, at least), then the problems are no longer Engineering's, which 
can then focus on Engineering tasks.

If the IMAP server is business critical to Engineering (and who 
*doesn't* feel email is business critical nowadays :-),
perhaps in the SLA you can posit a backup IMAP server for Engineering to 
become active if Exchange goes out.
As IT would be providing that to comply with the SLA, it likely wouldn't 
be a Cyrus IMAP server, of course.

-- 
Dan Jenkins (dan at rastech.com)
Rastech Inc., Bedford, NH, USA --- 1-603-206-9951
*** Technical Support Excellence for over a quarter century