Re: PostPath cracked Exchange protocols for Postfix-based mail server
Posted by: Anonymous
[ip: 81.57.42.108]
on July 31, 2008 05:53 PM
Zarafa is also an Exchange replacement, but not "drop-in" (at least, not in the sense Postpath seems to imply on their website) : Zarafa uses their own protocol, not the native Exchange protocol.
Which is good in some aspects :
- Data is transported on SOAP over http/https, so easy to firewall and proxy (as opposed to Exchange RPC protocol, wich require the server to connect back on a client' random port to send notifications....)
- It's more flexible (you can teach him you're own ldap schema for auth, use ssl everywhere, ...)
But this is bad in other aspects :
- You need to install the Zarafa Outlook plugin on every client machine (this take a lot of time). For every major update of the server, you have to upgrade every clients (which is very problematic for large installations).
- And indeed, the Linux/MacOS/... opensource exchange clients implementations (like the plugins for Evolution) won't work at all with it (you have to fallback with their imap gateway)
Beside, Zarafa has *very hard time* to handle large "stores" (mailboxes). A single user moving lots of mails can leave long running locks on the database, which prevents all other users to work with their mails. And as a sysadmin, that mean having the big boss shouting on my shoulders...
I currently administer a zarafa server at my compagny, and am looking for any replacement that would work well on Linux because of such bugs and low scalability problems.
In that respect, Postpath looks better designed, but it would be insane to migrate right now on such a young product.
So, both being unfixable (by the community) proprietary products, I wouldn't encourage any of them. Esp. having tested Zarafa in a real, production, environnement.
Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux help
Re: PostPath cracked Exchange protocols for Postfix-based mail server
Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 81.57.42.108] on July 31, 2008 05:53 PMWhich is good in some aspects :
- Data is transported on SOAP over http/https, so easy to firewall and proxy (as opposed to Exchange RPC protocol, wich require the server to connect back on a client' random port to send notifications....)
- It's more flexible (you can teach him you're own ldap schema for auth, use ssl everywhere, ...)
But this is bad in other aspects :
- You need to install the Zarafa Outlook plugin on every client machine (this take a lot of time). For every major update of the server, you have to upgrade every clients (which is very problematic for large installations).
- And indeed, the Linux/MacOS/... opensource exchange clients implementations (like the plugins for Evolution) won't work at all with it (you have to fallback with their imap gateway)
Beside, Zarafa has *very hard time* to handle large "stores" (mailboxes). A single user moving lots of mails can leave long running locks on the database, which prevents all other users to work with their mails. And as a sysadmin, that mean having the big boss shouting on my shoulders...
I currently administer a zarafa server at my compagny, and am looking for any replacement that would work well on Linux because of such bugs and low scalability problems.
In that respect, Postpath looks better designed, but it would be insane to migrate right now on such a young product.
So, both being unfixable (by the community) proprietary products, I wouldn't encourage any of them. Esp. having tested Zarafa in a real, production, environnement.
#