Mac Users...
-
@BBigford said:
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run?
Well, to be fair, Exchange is difficult to use, very expensive and not very practical on premises. They might not know the name of the products, but Zimbra is the big player and MDaemon has been around and @axigen is up and coming. And Apple might even have an offering.
And especially if you are using IMAP, that makes the others often better options.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run?
Well, to be fair, Exchange is difficult to use, very expensive and not very practice on premises. They might not know the name of the products, but Zimbra is the big player and MDaemon has been around and @axigen is up and coming. And Apple might even have an offering.
And something is wrong if the contracts say you have to run it on site. That's just dumb. Even our highly secretive stuff, that we get that can only be referred to by code names do not say dumb stuff like that. Clients don't dictate internal IT infrastructure.
-
@Jason said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run?
Well, to be fair, Exchange is difficult to use, very expensive and not very practice on premises. They might not know the name of the products, but Zimbra is the big player and MDaemon has been around and @axigen is up and coming. And Apple might even have an offering.
And something is wrong if the contracts say you have to run it on site. That's just dumb. Even our highly secretive stuff, that we get that can only be referred to by code names do not say dumb stuff like that. Clients don't dictate internal IT infrastructure.
They do when they dump in millions of dollars, pulling said contracts could tank the business.
But it isn't that way anymore. We could lose any one big contract and survive. But there are so many contracts that require it, it would be impossible for us to get it approved. They are not as secretive as yours. Couldn't tell you why it's that way. I know part of it is company policy not because of contracts, but because we have a lot of proprietary telco designs/gear/etc. All the designs around my desk all have stuff on them that say what happens if they get leaked.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I did get the comment "Exchange is so stupid. Why do we even use that buggy system?" The hell are we expected to run?
Well, to be fair, Exchange is difficult to use, very expensive and not very practical on premises. They might not know the name of the products, but Zimbra is the big player and MDaemon has been around and @axigen is up and coming. And Apple might even have an offering.
And especially if you are using IMAP, that makes the others often better options.
I'm not against switching by any means. Especially to Zimbra. But they can't bash something like that without providing an alternative. That's just ignorant.
Exchange really doesn't cost us that much anymore. It's like $700 for the server license and the CALs are like $75-85 apiece for roughly 150 people. It has support from Microsoft if we ever need it (we've needed it once in 5 years for an issue caused by updates, which they fixed for free).
Level of difficulty... no comment.
Not very practical on premise... there is not enough space in this thread to say how impractical it is on premise. The only thing we would lose is the relay, with copiers doing a send to email. Having Exchange hosted, we've found supporting articles and I believe a couple MS engineers, saying we would have significant issues so we steered away from that.
-
@BBigford said:
Not very practical on premise... there is not enough space in this thread to say how impractical it is on premise. The only thing we would lose is the relay, with copiers doing a send to email. Having Exchange hosted, we've found supporting articles and I believe a couple MS engineers, saying we would have significant issues so we steered away from that.
Relays are trivial. That's not a reason to not go hosted. If you really need a relay, that's a tiny project on Linux.
-
@BBigford said:
I'm not against switching by any means. Especially to Zimbra. But they can't bash something like that without providing an alternative. That's just ignorant.
I don't know that I agree. Knowing that something doesn't work well doesn't require knowing what does work well.
Someone can drive cars and drive one that they hate and know that there are cars that they like without knowing model names.
-
So I'm reading Facebook and laughing that this girl I know is screaming because a squirrel got chased into her house and is hiding behind the bed. Ha ha....
Oh wait, that's the girl that lives in my house. Doh!
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I'm not against switching by any means. Especially to Zimbra. But they can't bash something like that without providing an alternative. That's just ignorant.
I don't know that I agree. Knowing that something doesn't work well doesn't require knowing what does work well.
But they should at least have something to compare it to if they are suggesting we switch to something else. Haha this person is so incredibly rude 100% of the time, I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt on ANY level.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
Not very practical on premise... there is not enough space in this thread to say how impractical it is on premise. The only thing we would lose is the relay, with copiers doing a send to email. Having Exchange hosted, we've found supporting articles and I believe a couple MS engineers, saying we would have significant issues so we steered away from that.
Relays are trivial. That's not a reason to not go hosted. If you really need a relay, that's a tiny project on Linux.
How does that work...? I'm trying to think of the steps.
-
@BBigford said:
How does that work...? I'm trying to think of the steps.
You do a generic install, CentOS 7 Minimal, for example. You open port 25 to the LAN and you set the Postfix settings to allow local relay. That's it. Nothing to install. One firewall port to open. One config line to change. Done.
-
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
How does that work...? I'm trying to think of the steps.
You do a generic install, CentOS 7 Minimal, for example. You open port 25 to the LAN and you set the Postfix settings to allow local relay. That's it. Nothing to install. One firewall port to open. One config line to change. Done.
So then when you scan to email from the copier... it's going to look on the local LAN for 25, find the Linux relay, the relay points to the hosted instance of Exchange...?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
I can see how the Linux relay could point to O365, I'm having difficulty seeing how a copier would point to the Linux relay. Like if you had 2 copiers, and 2 different relays (maybe not practical, just seeing how you could have a copier be pointed at that specific relay).
-
@BBigford said:
So then when you scan to email from the copier... it's going to look on the local LAN for 25, find the Linux relay, the relay points to the hosted instance of Exchange...?
It works the same as it does now. Which is it looks to the server and the server relays the message on. Nothing changes at all in how it works. Just Postfix instead of Exchange.
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
I can see how the Linux relay could point to O365, I'm having difficulty seeing how a copier would point to the Linux relay. Like if you had 2 copiers, and 2 different relays (maybe not practical, just seeing how you could have a copier be pointed at that specific relay).
Well, HOW do you point it to your relay now? Nothing would change there. And using two relays, while REALLY weird, is super simple.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
So then when you scan to email from the copier... it's going to look on the local LAN for 25, find the Linux relay, the relay points to the hosted instance of Exchange...?
It works the same as it does now. Which is it looks to the server and the server relays the message on. Nothing changes at all in how it works. Just Postfix instead of Exchange.
Ok, so the copier is seeing the Postfix server instead of Exchange, but then Postfix just forwards it on to the hosted Exchange instance?
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
So then when you scan to email from the copier... it's going to look on the local LAN for 25, find the Linux relay, the relay points to the hosted instance of Exchange...?
It works the same as it does now. Which is it looks to the server and the server relays the message on. Nothing changes at all in how it works. Just Postfix instead of Exchange.
Ok, so the copier is seeing the Postfix server instead of Exchange, but then Postfix just forwards it on to the hosted Exchange instance?
Postfix sends it to whatever email address it's told to send to. That's what Exchange is doing now.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
I can see how the Linux relay could point to O365, I'm having difficulty seeing how a copier would point to the Linux relay. Like if you had 2 copiers, and 2 different relays (maybe not practical, just seeing how you could have a copier be pointed at that specific relay).
Well, HOW do you point it to your relay now? Nothing would change there. And using two relays, while REALLY weird, is super simple.
There's an option in our Konicas that you to put in the server's FQDN. I guess you could just enter that Linux server in there...
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
I can see how the Linux relay could point to O365, I'm having difficulty seeing how a copier would point to the Linux relay. Like if you had 2 copiers, and 2 different relays (maybe not practical, just seeing how you could have a copier be pointed at that specific relay).
Well, HOW do you point it to your relay now? Nothing would change there. And using two relays, while REALLY weird, is super simple.
There's an option in our Konicas that you to put in the server's FQDN. I guess you could just enter that Linux server in there...
Sure.
But you said that you have a relay now. How is that working? How is the copier finding the Exchange server today?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's for generic relay, if you want authenticated relay, you can do more config steps and make Postfix sign into O365 or Gmail or whatever.
I can see how the Linux relay could point to O365, I'm having difficulty seeing how a copier would point to the Linux relay. Like if you had 2 copiers, and 2 different relays (maybe not practical, just seeing how you could have a copier be pointed at that specific relay).
Well, HOW do you point it to your relay now? Nothing would change there. And using two relays, while REALLY weird, is super simple.
There's an option in our Konicas that you to put in the server's FQDN. I guess you could just enter that Linux server in there...
Sure.
But you said that you have a relay now. How is that working? How is the copier finding the Exchange server today?
Pretty janky actually. We have an older 2007 Exchange server, and a newer 2013 Exchange server. Old server has receive relay from a variety of IPs (copiers are included), then forwards off to the newer Exchange server if the message has to continue on. Hoping we get enough money and time this summer to dump the old instance, stand up a second 2013 instance and configure a DAG for balance/failover. Would be nice to have 2 servers on the same version.
Edit: It's more of a time matter, we've already had the funding set aside for a while since it doesn't cost that much.
