Re: [Evolution] wish-list (MS-Exchange support != MAPI support)

[Duane Mallory <malloryd asus net>]

Actually, we got all that by running Domiono on Linux.

I, too, agree that it would be nice to be able to interface to "legacy"
systems such as Exchange and Domino, and would make moving/sharing users
with these system much easier.  However, at this point I believe that
the evolution team is working to get the primary system up and running
for the pleasure of us all.

Just my 2 cents.

DCM

Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kevin A. Burton [mailto:burton relativity yi org]
> > Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2000 8:10 PM
> > To: evolution helixcode com
> > Subject: Re: [Evolution] wish-list (MS-Exchange support !=
> > MAPI support)
> >
> > Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Actually, MAPI is only one of the APIs MS provides for
> > > > accessing 'the messaging subsystem'. It's not the only one,
> > > > nor is Exchange the only mail server support it. While MAPI
> > > > is the API, the actual 'on-the-wire' format is not MAPI, but
> > > > the result of some exchange-library on your system
> > > > translating MAPI calls into the 'on-the-wire' format and
> > vice versa.
> > > > Unfortunately, while MAPI is documented pretty well, the
> > > > on-the-wire format is not widely available (AFAIK). The
> > > > short-term solution is to convince you sysadmin to install
> > > > IMAP support for Exchange to be able to access it...''
> > >
> > > That is why I said "MS Exchange MAPI", and not just "MAPI".
> >  However,
> > > Evolution is useless with only IMAP support on the Exchange
> > server, as it
> > > defeats the purpose of having Exchange.  Exchange is so
> > much more than a
> > > mail storage facility, it provides the framework for a
> > "groupware" system.
> > > It allows (relatively) easy group callendaring, messaging
> > (email), tracking
> > > of both email and other "office" products.  I hate to sound
> > like I'm selling
> > > Exchange, since I wouldn't wish that on any administrator,
> > however, it
> > > offers the best groupware systemt that I've seen, from the
> > users point of
> > > view.  I'll have to see what I can find about the wire format that
> > > Outlook/Exchange speak, I haven't looked yet, since
> > Evolution doesn't even
> > > have a GUI that works.
> > >         Greg
> >
> > I would be interested in hearing what MS Exchange can do that IMAP and
> > iCalendar combined can not do.  After Evolution has support
> > for both and
> > there is a decent server to run against there really would be
> > no reason
> > that it couldn't be able to beat Exchange.  There are some more areas
> > such as Web based access to all this information but we are working on
> > this problem with Apache Jetspeed (java.apache.org/jetspeed)
> > and should
> > have iCalendar support shortly (within days) and
> > IMAP/SMTP/POP3 support
> > within weeks.
>
> Hmm.  Well, since this is mostly academic (to me, anyway), here's what it
> needs.
> Single source authentication.  There needs to be a single directory (ala
> NDS, perhaps LDAP) that contains login/password combinations for
> services/mailboxes.  Some of this is OS specific, some is specific to the
> mail server, or whatever.  Every piece needs to be able to look to a single
> directory for it's login credentials.  Ideally, this same directory would be
> a repository for ACLs for the mail/iCalendar support.  The ACLs need to be
> stored to allow me to access other people's mailboxes, assuming that they
> give me permission, using their client.  The ACLs should be pretty specific,
> granular to below the mailbox level (so that a secretary can add
> appointments, and look at details for those, but cannot change/remove/look
> at details for appointments that the "boss" has created, unless the "boss"
> grants permission).
> Any web based access will be sifignantly better than OWA, so that's not a
> big concern (can you tell I don't like OWA?).  One important thing is the
> ability to have it look like the client that they would use in a non-web
> access situation.  Another would be the ability to have a distributed system
> where the web-client runs on a different server than where the mail/calendar
> actually resides.  Oh, and the web client should be secure, and fast (not a
> lot of image bloat) to download, and fast to run (low execution overhead on
> the server).
>
> A lot of the power in Exchange comes from the fact that many cool things
> work out of the box.  When we installed Exchange, we immediately had server
> side filtering, IMAP, POP, LDAP, and plug-in authentication with our
> existing NT domain.  In order to get that on *nix, I need to install at
> least one program for POP/IMAP, and another for LDAP.  I don't know how to
> do server side-filtering, or configure either Solaris or Linux to do all of
> their authentication via the LDAP server.  If somebody was to package a good
> IMAP/POP server, with an LDAP server, and some way of doing server-side
> filtering (or at least of storing the filtering procedures server-side),
> they could have a really nice product.  If that same product came with some
> engineering time (or a discount on engineering time) to get a group of *nix
> machines talking together with a single directory, that would be a real
> money maker.  There's a lot of technical stuff to work out (like providing
> the same client on X and Win32 desktops), but I think that package deals
> like that are going to be what allows unix to take over in shops that have
> been NT, because NT does come packaged so that you can use it, almost right
> out of the box.  Wow, that was a lot of crud out of me for a Sunday night,
> enjoy your monday morning (unless you're grafted to the PC like I am).
>         Greg