[Leaplist] Zarafa now under GPL3 is this any good?

[Hank Lambert]

What a great explanation. A few months ago I was researching the various
"mail servers" because we were considering replacing an Exchange server
and hosting a few domains. Coming from a Microsoft shop, and having a
very limited exposure to any non-Microsoft networking, I also did not
realize the difference between a mail server and collaboration system; I
thought they were the same thing. I would ask questions on this list,
and John and others would reply and I would think that they just didn't
understand my questions. I forget who it was, but someone here finally
explained the difference.

We gave up on the collaboration side, and ended up running Centos 5.2
with cPanel in a VMWare session running off a MS Server 2008 machine.
Needless to say, that was not my recommendation. I was pushing for
either a dedicated Centos or Debian box  running Qmail. But again, we
are a Microsoft shop and everyone is afraid of Linux. I was just glad to
get a Centos box running.

As far as Exchange and shared calendaring go, I never make the conscious
connection that Outlook is doing all of the work. I knew it as I have
been working regularly with Exchange for a few years now, but I never
really thought about it. How funny that one of Exchange's biggest
features outside of Public folders is actually just making connections
between (thick?) clients.

--Hank


Bryan J. Smith wrote:
>
> First off, MS Exchange is a "dumb" server side store and
> relies largely on "fat" clients for scheduling and other
> details -- from its MAPI to newer XMLRPC to "fat" web
> client -- that's how it does scheduling.  A "true,
> enterprise collaboration system" has server-side logic,
> let alone is extensible.
>
> Secondly, such "true, enterprise collaboration systems"
> were invented and widely deployed on UNIX in the '80s,
> including GUIs and even Windows connectors added in the'90s.
> Sadly, until the 21st century, none were open source,
> although several were available for Linux, some even
> with free licenses.
>
> Lastly, since the 21st century, several systems have
> been made available open source.  Some use simple stores,
> others have far more advanced, back-end, business logic.
> Such systems include OpenGroupware.ORG (OGo, aka SKYRiX)
> and Zimbra.  I have setup OGo before, and it's not easy.
> Fortunately Zimbra is much easier.
>
>   
>> Zarafa is supposed to have all of these.
>>     
>
> Yes, it looks like Zarafa is your "run of the mill"
> Exchange "replacement":  
> http://www.zarafa.com/?q=en/content/technical-explanation  
>
> I do _not_ see anything other than a IMAP API (including
> how it does web-based access).  That means it's not very 
> flexible at all.  It claims ActiveSync support for PDAs,
> but that also makes me wonder if it's Windows-only.
>
> Real systems have "true" backend services, such as
> Palm.NET for direct mobile sync, open backends so
> connectors like Evolution can be used, etc...  They may
> also have open business logic for real, intelligent
> server-side operations.
>
>   
>> Would love some feedback from those who have used or
>> know much more about mail servers then I on this
>> subject.
>>     
>
> I think this is where you're getting confused.  You say
> "mail" server, but you're talking about "collaboration"
> systems.  They are distinctly separate services, although
> some systems bundle them together -- in some cases, because
> a vendor does not offer a mail server in the OS (e.g.,
> Windows Server).
>
> MS Exchange is only three (3) things:  
> - Mail Server
> - Contacts Store (X.500 extension of ActiveDirectory LDAP)
> - General Server Store (IMAP or XMLRPC)
> - *NO* server-side business logic, *NO* added options
>   (MAPI or proprietary XMLRPC, very limited)
>
> In Linux, you already get a Mail Server, and you have
> several LDAP options for Contact Store.  All you need is
> a General Server Store, or possibly a more advanced
> Backend Store which would hold calendaring and other
> information -- on that utilizes the other two.
>
> Remember, MS Exchange is _dumb_.  It's _not_ how people
> sell it.  The "fat" clients do "all the work" on many
> things.  Outlook Web Access (OWA) is quite a "fat" web
> client as a result.
>
> There are "lightweight" systems such as KGroupware that
> have a good iCal/Free-Busy publishing (FTP/HTTP) approach
> that servers as limited stores.
>
> Then there are "heavyweight" systems such as OGo and
> Zimbra that offer fully open backends, _not_ iCal or
> MAPI-only protocols.  You can sync directly to handhelds
> (Zimbra is even working out a deal with Blackberry last
> time I checked), Evolution and several other, full
> collaboration clients (remember, Evolution isn't just a
> "mail client" -- it's a "collaboration client" and acts
> accordingly/differently).  These are how traditional,
> "true, enterprise collaboration" systems used to work. 
>
> MS Exchange, in comparison, is the not even a PC
> welterweight, relying on "fat" clients to "do most/all
> of the work."
>
>
>   

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.