Outlook replacement

[Jeremy Fowler]

Gotta bust your stones on this...

> On Wed, 5 Feb 2003, Benjamin Fisher wrote:
>
> > Well, so long as I go use outlook, I can send out to anybody.  It's
> > using SMTP as far as I can tell.  And prob. MAPI for incoming?  Hum.
>
> Benjamin,
> I'm not sure if I misunderstand you here, or if perhaps you need help in
> understanding how SMTP, IMAP, and POP work.

Perhaps you need a refresher... ;-)

> For starters, SMTP is the simple mail transport protocol.  This is the
> protocol used _between_ one mail server and another.  Unless you're hand
> crafting spam, it is highly unlikely you will ever make use of it
> directly.  The proper jargon for the server in this case is an MTA or
> message transport authority.

...and between mail client and server. It is the _ONLY_ way to actually send
email.

> POP is the post office protocol.  Generally, this protocol is used by a
> mail reader to connect to the mail server, and retrieve all messages to
> local storage (although it can often be configured to leave copies on the
> server).  This protocol is also used to submit your newly composed
> messages to the server.  The server will then use SMTP to deliver it to
> the final destination mail server.  As you can see here, this probably
> isn't at all what you're dealing with.

Nope, not to submit - Receive only.

> IMAP is the internet message access protocol.  It is a method of accessing
> electronic mail or bulletin board messages that are kept on a (possibly
> shared) mail server.  This is sort of POP on steroids with better
> features.  Then again, it depends on the mail client, also referred to as
> an MUA or mail user agent.

Not quite like POP, with IMAP your mailbox on the server is able to store
messages in folders. When you connect, the mailbox on your local PC is sync'd
with the mailbox on the server. Sometimes, there isn't even a local copy and all
work is done directly on the server.

> In the case of our current topic, Outlook, you'll find that Outlook speaks
> with your exchange server via RPC (remote procedure calls) and even this
> channel is proprietary.  This is the part that has made it so hard for
> folks to develop something like Evolution with the Exchange client.  The
> point we've all been trying to make is that you aren't forced to use the
> RPC method if your admin isn't on dope.  Provided he's willing to learn
> how do to things right you can certainly use POP or IMAP to send/receive
> mail via the exchange server.  This won't require Outlook at all - you can
> use Eudora, Netscape, or any other POP or IMAP compliant mail reader.

That proprietary protocol is what Microsoft calls MAPI. It is required to use
Outlook's more advanced features (Sharing Contacts, Tasks, Calendars, Forms,
etc.) These features are unavailable with just IMAP.

> Your admin, in my opinion, has taken the "I'll bash Microsoft products
> (exchange) for being completely insecure, and nobody will notice I don't
> know how to administer them" tack.  It will eventually be his undoing.
> You need to get a handful of folks to squeak enough to get this guy
> greased into providing you the access you need.
> Dustin

Well, has anyone considered that perhaps he limits what protocols are accepted
because he is really anal about security? Why have POP3, IMAP, IIS, etc. running
if you force your users to connect one way and one way only? Less ports open,
less things to worry about. -Jeremy