Solved Email server options
-
Only gotten to play with it a tiny bit, but so far I am liking it. Way more modern than Zimbra, Outlook, or Gmail.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Only gotten to play with it a tiny bit, but so far I am liking it. Way more modern than Zimbra, Outlook, or Gmail.
Modern in what way versus the others? Quantum computing? Nicer colors / better layout?
-
@Obsolesce let me know if you would like an account
-
@Obsolesce said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
Only gotten to play with it a tiny bit, but so far I am liking it. Way more modern than Zimbra, Outlook, or Gmail.
Modern in what way versus the others? Quantum computing? Nicer colors / better layout?
Looks the same, but it uses all quantum mechanics underneath and communicates over EoS (Ethernet over Subspace)
-
@Curtis said in Email server options:
@Obsolesce let me know if you would like an account
I'll take an account.
-
The Web UI looks nice. I need to test it with Outlook and iOS/Android.
Haven't had time.
-
@JaredBusch said in Email server options:
@Obsolesce said in Email server options:
Maybe if you factor in labor, cost of Windows and MS management, time etx, perhaps cloud is better?
Those have nothing to do with the apple to apples cost of the Mail Server options themselves.
Those have lots to do with the final total. I know how to do math so that has nothing to do with my question on costing out options.
I don't understand how this doesn't make apples to apples?
You can't price out an O365 versus Zimbra in apples to apples without tossing in the costs of all of the under lying setup plus the hardware for Zimbra.
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
And don't forget about your backup infrastructure you'll need for Zimbra as well.
Most people who use O365 rely on the site level backups that MS provides, assuming that's good enough for your client, at least you don't need to add more expense on top of O365 for that part.
also you had Windows CALs listed for the On-Prem server - why? do you not already have CALs? are they so old that you're force to replace them to get to even Server 2016?
Lastly - for now - while I agree that the end user access method isn't critical at this junction - it's still important to talk about.
I had a customer with on-prem Exchange - they moved to Rackspace email and used IMAP with Outlook, and the native email app on the phones. That seemed to work OK for several years.
Roughly a year ago they were forced away from Rackspace and wound up on Zoho. They have had nothing but massive IMAP issues ever sense. They have Outlook 2016 using IMAP, phone native email client using IMAP, and webmail when they are at home. They constantly find things missing from Outlook that appear on the phones or in webmail.My whole point in mentioning this is - it's totally possible that whatever platform you move to will have issues with IMAP and Outlook. Again, I know this doesn't really affect the server side - but it plays a factor in client satisfaction.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
also you had Windows CALs listed for the On-Prem server - why? do you not already have CALs? are they so old that you're force to replace them to get to even Server 2016?
Not for 2019.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
You can't price out an O365 versus Zimbra in apples to apples without tossing in the costs of all of the under lying setup plus the hardware for Zimbra.
I stated those other things most certainly are important to the entire decision. But they have nothing to do with the specific piece of the decision I am gathering information on now, which is the email server itself.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Lastly - for now - while I agree that the end user access method isn't critical at this junction - it's still important to talk about.
Not in this thread. This thread is strictly for the Email server information.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
-
@JaredBusch said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
You can't price out an O365 versus Zimbra in apples to apples without tossing in the costs of all of the under lying setup plus the hardware for Zimbra.
I stated those other things most certainly are important to the entire decision. But they have nothing to do with the specific piece of the decision I am gathering information on now, which is the email server itself.
I disagree - for example if the company demands to use Outlook for the client side - and it's know that Zoho has shitty connection to Outlook - that takes Zoho off the table from the get go.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
Interesting. My issue on my VM platform is storage - I don't have a 500 GB+ left over to offer all 100 of my users 5+ GB
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@JaredBusch said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
You can't price out an O365 versus Zimbra in apples to apples without tossing in the costs of all of the under lying setup plus the hardware for Zimbra.
I stated those other things most certainly are important to the entire decision. But they have nothing to do with the specific piece of the decision I am gathering information on now, which is the email server itself.
I disagree - for example if the company demands to use Outlook for the client side - and it's know that Zoho has shitty connection to Outlook - that takes Zoho off the table from the get go.
You are conflating things. Yes, what you state is true. No it does not matter in the case specified. The case is strictly a comparison of the email servers.
That information must be known before you can then also apply the other constraints such as client access applications.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
Interesting. My issue on my VM platform is storage - I don't have a 500 GB+ left over to offer all 100 of my users 5+ GB
I wish I could get my 5+ GB users to understand how useless their email hoarding is. Half the emails they keep for 8+ years are irrelevant to anything today.
-
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
Interesting. My issue on my VM platform is storage - I don't have a 500 GB+ left over to offer all 100 of my users 5+ GB
Oh, I'm not saying it'll be free. But at 100+ users, 500GB+ of additional email storage is a trivial cost per user. Sure you might invest $10 per user, every six years, but that's nothing. Like $1.50 a year. Compare to O365 at $48 per year and it is almost background noise.
-
@JaredBusch said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@JaredBusch said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
You can't price out an O365 versus Zimbra in apples to apples without tossing in the costs of all of the under lying setup plus the hardware for Zimbra.
I stated those other things most certainly are important to the entire decision. But they have nothing to do with the specific piece of the decision I am gathering information on now, which is the email server itself.
I disagree - for example if the company demands to use Outlook for the client side - and it's know that Zoho has shitty connection to Outlook - that takes Zoho off the table from the get go.
You are conflating things. Yes, what you state is true. No it does not matter in the case specified. The case is strictly a comparison of the email servers.
That information must be known before you can then also apply the other constraints such as client access applications.
OK I guess I see your point - you start with a huge list of acceptable email servers.. then constrain that list based on things like what clients will be used, etc.
OK - you win.
-
@pmoncho said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
Interesting. My issue on my VM platform is storage - I don't have a 500 GB+ left over to offer all 100 of my users 5+ GB
I wish I could get my 5+ GB users to understand how useless their email hoarding is. Half the emails they keep for 8+ years are irrelevant to anything today.
-
@pmoncho said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
Interesting. My issue on my VM platform is storage - I don't have a 500 GB+ left over to offer all 100 of my users 5+ GB
I wish I could get my 5+ GB users to understand how useless their email hoarding is. Half the emails they keep for 8+ years are irrelevant to anything today.
Sadly, my boss constantly likes to point out how she found an email from 8 years ago that helped her today.
The reality is - I knew email would be a huge storage sink if I didn't squash it from day one. Normal users get 500 Megs - yep, 1/2 gig for mail. Admins get 1 Gig, Drs get unlimited, but most live in well under 1 Gig.
My boss has the largest mailbox at 6 Gig currently along with 4 PSTs different points where we've removed old data from the live mailbox. She likely has well over 20 Gigs of email data. -
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
@scottalanmiller said in Email server options:
@Dashrender said in Email server options:
Now fine, you said you have some existing hardware that you can use for it, but will be replacing it in a year or two - that cost should definitely be added in.
Should factor, for sure. But it is often super cheap. Zimbra or MailCow use very few resources compared to something like Exchange. The per user cost gets super low in most cases. If you want a top end cost, price it out on Vultr, Digital Ocean, or Linode and see what it would cost that way. It'll be "low". And running it on your own will always be way less. So its super conservative.
Interesting. My issue on my VM platform is storage - I don't have a 500 GB+ left over to offer all 100 of my users 5+ GB
Oh, I'm not saying it'll be free. But at 100+ users, 500GB+ of additional email storage is a trivial cost per user. Sure you might invest $10 per user, every six years, but that's nothing. Like $1.50 a year. Compare to O365 at $48 per year and it is almost background noise.
Adding storage to an existing SMB VM platform is not something I consider trivial though. My current platform as zero open disk slots - so adding more storage would mean either adding a DAS tray or god forbid a SAN/NAS neither option which is cheap. Likely more than $1000 (100 users * $10/user).
Now at next refresh of the hardware, it will be much easier, and likely less expensive to add that storage.
