postfix

[Paul Lussier]

"Ben Scott" <dragonhawk at gmail.com> writes:

>> If Exchange does this, it's because someone thought to build an AD
>> query into the interface that does so.
>
>   There's no default "all users" DL (Distribution List) in any part of
> AD, Exchange, or Outlook.  Kind of surprising, really.  Microsoft
> likes that kind of thing.

I didn't say Exchange *did* do this, I said *if* it did...  Pedantic,
yes, but I worded it that way because a) I'm not an Exchange Admin, b)
I have/had no idea if Exchange does this :)

>   One can mail-enable the "Domain Users" group or similar.

Is this not essentially the same as an 'all users' group?  Perhaps
it's one of those things not on by default, but everyone "just does
it" ?

> And one can, of course, create any number of manually-maintained
> DLs.  The same goes for Sendmail -- I've maintained "everybody"
> aliases before.

Right, ditto. That was sorta my point.  We're in violent (or at least
vocally pdantic) agreement here :)

>> POP and IMAP simply store it until picked up by the authenticated user.
>
>   IMAP typically stores it afterwards, too -- unless your initials are
> "pll".  ;-)

Right :)

>> Perhaps 'Mail Storage Agent' ?
>
>   I like it, but it collides with MSA.  Maybe "Mail Box Agent"?  Then
> all us sysadmins can claim we've got an MBA.... ;-)

I've *got* an MBA.  I call her "Boss". :)

>>> Exchange itself will never be an MDA for a Sendmail or Postfix ...
>>
>> Never say never.  Let's all agree that we *hope* we never need to use
>> Exchange as an MDA for a postfix or sendmail system!
>
>   Well, I suppose if you had Sendmail or Postfix running on a Exchange
> server, and you also wrote a custom MAPI or CDO program to inject mail
> into the Exchange Information Store without using the Exchange SMTP
> service, then you could do that.
>
>   But otherwise, you're just going to be using the SMTP relay function
> as the MDA for Sendmail/Postfix.  (In Sendmail, this is the "smtp"
> mailer.)

Duh, you're right. I'm confusing my Ds and Ts again.  We have a
scenario where Exchange is an M*T*A handing mail off to a sendmail
system (and a postfix system for that matter).

>   I used to work at UNH.

'Nuff said ;)

>>> One of the reasons I like Linux so much is that everything is
>>> included "in the box"; I don't need to buy eighteen more tools for
>>> every server.
>>
>> Exchange lovers say much the same thing :)
>
>   No competent Exchange admin

I didn't say *admin*! ;)

> Well, sure.  But your assertion was that it's all one product, and
> it ain't.  :)

Okay, I'll allow you to play the pedant this time :) My point was that
"people" perceive that Exchange is all one product, and that it "just
works".  Where as a Linux solution is not all one product.  Moreover,
the Linux solution consists of several different products all
maintained by completely separate and distinct entities for which
there no "support".  My impression is that when a small shop hears
Linux, they think support nightmare, when they hear Exchange, they
think "neat unified, one-stop-shopping solution all in one box".

The fact that both solutions consist of putting together a jigsaw
puzzle from different, competing, non-cooperative entities is
irrellevant.  The fact that the Linux solution is actually better than
Exchange on so many levels is lost on them, especially since it won't
have a decent, integrated calendar solution!)

Those are my impressions.  I would love to hear that I'm wrong and
that the world at large is beginning to wake up :)

>>  Basically, once the SMTP service receives the mail into Exchange
>>  all bets are off!
>
> I regard myself as a competent (albeit reluctant) Exchange admin, so
> I'll have to disagree.

I'll take your word for it.  I'm not (and hopefully never will be) an
Exchange admin.  My impressions are based on age-old "common"
knowledge.  It's probably my impressions need an apt-get update, since
all software gets better (and more features) with age, right? :)
-- 
Seeya,
Paul