From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 20 07:28:45 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1949316A4CE for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:28:45 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp11.wanadoo.fr (smtp11.wanadoo.fr [193.252.22.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5935943D1D for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:28:44 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from atkielski.anthony@wanadoo.fr) Received: from me-wanadoo.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mwinf1102.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 8AEF61C00089 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:28:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from pix.atkielski.com (ASt-Lambert-111-2-1-3.w81-50.abo.wanadoo.fr [81.50.80.3]) by mwinf1102.wanadoo.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 59C451C00083 for ; Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:28:43 +0100 (CET) X-ME-UUID: 20050320072843367.59C451C00083@mwinf1102.wanadoo.fr Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 08:28:43 +0100 From: Anthony Atkielski X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1029409489.20050320082843@wanadoo.fr> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200503191920.47816.durham@jcdurham.com> References: <423AD243.5030601@myunix.net> <423BEAD4.6040207@myunix.net> <200503191920.47816.durham@jcdurham.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: MS Exchange server on FreeBSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 07:28:45 -0000 Jim Durham writes: > Personally, I wouldn't wish Exchange on my worst enemy. It uses a > database to store mail and, if that database becomes corrupted, > you can lose all the email for the company. All e-mail systems use a database of some type; the only differences are in how visible the structure of the database is to the outside world. Exchange uses a custom variation of the database manager used by Access, called (if things haven't changed recently) Jet Blue. It was chosen because it was compact and performant and placed relatively few restrictions on the format of the data stored within it. If the database becomes corrupted, which is highly unlikely, you must restore it from your last backup (every mail administrator takes frequent backups, which can be done online with Exchange). One advantage of Exchange is that only the Exchange Server accesses the database; everyone else communicates with the server, but does not access the database directly. Since many cases of database corruption arise when independent processes access a single database, this eliminates an important point of failure. > This will make you extremely unpopular. We had it happen once and just > moved everyone over to Sendmail and never lost an email for 5 years > now. Clearly, your organization had no need for any of the advanced features Exchanges provides. In some companies, a move from Exchange to sendmail would engender the creation of lynch mobs. Users tend to become very attached to Exchange features. I've seen Exchange servers run for years without any instance of database corruption, and it's not a serious problem. > It also has no concept of how internet mail works. It > creates an environment where, if you are not running Outlook, > you are "outside the loop". It is its own world and not really > internet mail as we know it. Proprietary systems always work that way. Exchange works that way because virtually all the features it provides are unknown to the relatively simple Internet e-mail standards. It _has_ to do it in a proprietary way, because there isn't any standard way. There are no RFCs explaining how to share calendar information across an e-mail network. Nevertheless, Exchange does communicate with other MTAs without any trouble using standard Internet protocols. > Also, you have to run it on a Windows "server". which is not a > server at all, but a glorified 2000 box or XP box. Actually, you have it backwards. Windows-NT based boxes on the desktop are actually scaled-down servers. NT and its successors (200x and XP) were designed primarily as server operating systems. Exchange is tightly integrated into the Windows server architecture and runs very well with it. However, it's also true that it won't run on anything else. It's best to have Windows servers dedicated to Exchange (if the organization is so small that it can get by with Exchange running on a more general-purpose machine, it's probably too small to profit from Exchange). > Anything that wants you to kick off all the users just because you > installed a new piece of software is a toy server. You don't want to > deal with that in a 24/7 world. There's never a time you can do that > unless you *like* coming in Sunday night at midnight! You don't install things on a dedicated mail server. Once it's up and running, it stays unchanged for years at a time. -- Anthony