implications of 'exchange server' for linux?

greets!

I just found out today there is a move to push people off the college pop
server onto something called 'exchange server'.

I asked what that means for people on other operating systems and the IT
guy said they can use browsers to get at their mail. I hate using a
browser to handle mail.

what are some other implications?

I assume I wouldn't be able to ssh in, use pine or set up my
procmail/spamassassin system - am I right?

Felmon


felmon

On 2004-10-09, felmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I asked what that means for people on other operating systems and the IT
> guy said they can use browsers to get at their mail.

Or they could enable pop/imap access and everything stays the same.

> I assume I wouldn't be able to ssh in, use pine or set up my
> procmail/spamassassin system - am I right?

You can download your mail into your own system and then run
procmail/spamassassin in your machine, but I don't think you can
ssh into a Windows server, no... and if I was the sysadmin
I wouldn't let people ssh into my mail server and run
procmail/spamassassin at will...

Davide

--
Windows and DOS -- a turtle and it's shell.

On 2004-10-09, felmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> greets!
>
> I just found out today there is a move to push people off the college pop
> server onto something called 'exchange server'.
>
> I asked what that means for people on other operating systems and the IT
> guy said they can use browsers to get at their mail. I hate using a
> browser to handle mail.

Exchange server can support both POP or IMAP access (presuming
the admin enables it). People report that IMAP support is more
robust than POP.

> what are some other implications?

It runs on Windows, so the usual plethora of security,
reliability, and standards-breakange issues.

> I assume I wouldn't be able to ssh in,

Probably not.

> use pine or set up my procmail/spamassassin system - am I right?

If they enable POP or IMAP, you could run fetchmail and do
procmail/SA on your own machine.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Are you still an
at ALCOHOLIC?
visi.com

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:12:47 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

> People report that IMAP support is more robust than POP.

Exchange's IMAP implementation isn't RFC compliant. To the point where it
will confuse Thunderbird (and possibly other clients, I've not checked).

Use POP3 if your using Thunderbird.

--
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing
what the dictionary says it means, you go to jail. No exceptions.
-- David Jones

On 2004-10-09, Geoffrey King <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Exchange's IMAP implementation isn't RFC compliant. To the point where it
> will confuse Thunderbird (and possibly other clients, I've not checked).

I've been using it with Mozilla and Netscape with no problem.
Davide

--
Choose two:
(A) Fast (B) Efficient (C) Stable (D) Windows 95 (counts as two)

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 19:24:56 +0000, Davide Bianchi wrote:

> On 2004-10-09, Geoffrey King <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Exchange's IMAP implementation isn't RFC compliant. To the point where it
>> will confuse Thunderbird (and possibly other clients, I've not checked).
>
> I've been using it with Mozilla and Netscape with no problem.
> Davide

Exchange is not following RFC's for the IMAP FETCH command. See
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2683.html part 3.4.5

Its basically reporting the *compressed* size of the message in the
message store rather than the real size. Thus when Moz/Thunderbird goes
and asks for the message, it uses the compressed size of the message in
the FETCH command. This is obviously wrong but Moz/Thunderbird doesn't
know any different it's just using the numbers it was given.

Obligatory bugzilla references.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=171197
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92111
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=105606

--
BOFH Excuse #143:

had to use hammer to free stuck disk drive heads.

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:11:23 +0000, Davide Bianchi wrote:

> I wouldn't let people ssh into my mail server and run
> procmail/spamassassin at will...
>
> Davide

they do now. I cannot access the blacklist sites but that's fine.

Felmon

On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 10:12:47 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote:

> On 2004-10-09, felmon <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> greets!
>>
>> I just found out today there is a move to push people off the college pop
>> server onto something called 'exchange server'.
>>
>> I asked what that means for people on other operating systems and the IT
>> guy said they can use browsers to get at their mail. I hate using a
>> browser to handle mail.
>
> Exchange server can support both POP or IMAP access (presuming
> the admin enables it). People report that IMAP support is more
> robust than POP.
>
>> what are some other implications?
>
> It runs on Windows, so the usual plethora of security,
> reliability, and standards-breakange issues.
>
>> I assume I wouldn't be able to ssh in,
>
> Probably not.
>
>> use pine or set up my procmail/spamassassin system - am I right?
>
> If they enable POP or IMAP, you could run fetchmail and do
> procmail/SA on your own machine.

alright, this gives me some questions to ask them. it sounds like the
chief concern is the POP protocol. as you and others remark, I can run my
SA stuff on my own machine.

ssh and pine were nice but aren't so important in this regard as long as I
can have some control at my end and am not forced to use some web
interface to deal with my email.

F.

On 2004-10-09, Davide Bianchi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> and if I was the sysadmin
> I wouldn't let people ssh into my mail server and run
> procmail/spamassassin at will...

Wow. I'm sure glad you don't run my ISP. If they didn't
support ssh, procmail and SA, I'd change to another ISP and
never look back.

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! How many retired
at bricklayers from FLORIDA
visi.com are out purchasing PENCIL
SHARPENERS right NOW??

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 09 Oct 2004 22:25:35 GMT,
Grant Edwards <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2004-10-09, Davide Bianchi <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> and if I was the sysadmin
>> I wouldn't let people ssh into my mail server and run
>> procmail/spamassassin at will...
>
> Wow. I'm sure glad you don't run my ISP. If they didn't
> support ssh, procmail and SA, I'd change to another ISP and
> never look back.
>


Well, to be fair, my ISP has different servers, for different tasks, I
can't ssh into the mailserver, but I can ssh into the user machine. The
mailserver, and the webservers, are rightly seperate machines, which I,
as a normal user, have no influence or rights on. My website is served
from there, but that's about it AFAIK.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBaG6Fd90bcYOAWPYRAq4mAJ9edWBNdzE4FoCFnv8FsP/Im8nqjgCeMmkl
VRlci19SndE22f87OxpWmq4=
=qFiR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Monday. Not just another day; a never ending spiral to Hell.
(With a stop in Cleveland.)
--Mark P. Beckman