Correct me if I'm wrong, but already my Jaguar version of Mail.app has support for MS Exchange.
I can receive and send mails and view my folders. I have no problem with this.
And I'll be happy if the ability to manage Outlook appointments will be present and fully functional in Panther.
Comments
Originally posted by Sedak
Correct me if I'm wrong, but already my Jaguar version of Mail.app has support for MS Exchange.
I can receive and send mails and view my folders. I have no problem with this.
And I'll be happy if the ability to manage Outlook appointments will be present and fully functional in Panther.
Mine doesn't, and neither does the version I have in Panther. When I say Exchange, I don't mean an Exchange server running POP or IMAP services. Any mail client can connect to that. What I'm talking about is connecting to an Exchange server via Exchange, i.e. Microsoft's proprietary mail services. That would also include calendaring and scheduling, etc.
So far, Mail.app only lets you connect to servers via POP and IMAP. That doesn't do me any good. Since Microsoft just released the Office updates which give Entourage the ability to connect to Exchange, I've been using that. But so far, no indication that Mail.app will be able to do it.
Exchange **CAN** support:
POP
IMAP
MAPI
For some reason some Exchange admins REFUSE to click the silly little check box that will TURN ON pop and/or imap and get this, the reason they give is 'security concerns'. Is that a joke or what?!?! Someone basing their company data on a MICROSOFT product isn't turning on IMAP or POP due to security concerns.. Talk about the biggest effing joke ever!!
But anyway that being here nor there... The fact still remans that most people running Exchange servers are not going to change their settings without someone 'high up' giving the orders. Most likely due to the fact that they FINALLY going things running 'okay' and they are too afraid to touch things..
As of toady and more than likely FOREVER.
- Mail supports IMAP and POP
- Eudora supports IMAP and POP
- Entourage supports IMAP and POP (yes even with the new update)
From what I've read, Microsoft is (slowly) moving AWAY from MAPI even for Windows. With that being said, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone to ever come out with a MAPI client for OS X.
I know it sucks (I too have to deal with Exchange at work 10k PCs vs. 300 Macs) but at least where I work the VIPs are **ALL** running X now (yeee-haw) so we now have IMAP *and* POP turned on.
I too read that the new Mail in Panther says it has 'exchange' support but I'm still willing to bet that it isn't MAPI (but who know maybe I'm wrong).
Fingers crossed for those who still need it...
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
Okay folks, it's really simple...
Exchange **CAN** support:
POP
IMAP
MAPI
For some reason some Exchange admins REFUSE to click the silly little check box that will TURN ON pop and/or imap and get this, the reason they give is 'security concerns'. Is that a joke or what?!?! Someone basing their company data on a MICROSOFT product isn't turning on IMAP or POP due to security concerns.. Talk about the biggest effing joke ever!!
Hello. I am, among other things, an Exchange administrator for an insurance company. I use Mac OS X Mail as my personal (non-work) mail client. Many Exchange admins refuse to enable IMAP/POP because they want as few services running on their Exchange server as possible. I have POP enabled on mine because we have an application that requires it. It's disabled for every mailbox that doesn't need it.
But anyway that being here nor there... The fact still remans that most people running Exchange servers are not going to change their settings without someone 'high up' giving the orders. Most likely due to the fact that they FINALLY going things running 'okay' and they are too afraid to touch things..
My company's migration from Domino to Exchange was, by and large, transparent. The only reasons the users knew it happened was because of Outlook instead of Notes, and that our Domino server was so slow, it took us about two weeks to migrate all of the e-mail off. I changed the MX record at 5PM on a Friday afternoon, and, from that moment, new external mail started coming into Exchange. Users were told not to generate mail in Notes, and to wait until the mail showed up in Outlook. If there was an emergency situation, we dealt with that on a case-by-case basis. Our Exchange deployment is still running smoothly almost two years later.
There's a difference between being "afraid to touch things" and "not fiddle-farting with a business-critical server's configuration to accommodate a small, vocal minority of users without a mandate from Management." In most companies, changing a server's configuration without management approval (except in emergency cases) is grounds for termination. No groveling. No explaining about non-Outlook mail clients. You are escorted out of the building, and get your personal effects mailed to you. While it's extremely unlikely that enabling a protocol on a production mail server will cause a problem, the way businesses attempt to ensure that no problems will occur is that they don't mess with production servers.
From what I've read, Microsoft is (slowly) moving AWAY from MAPI even for Windows. With that being said, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anyone to ever come out with a MAPI client for OS X.
Yes. I'll be as happy as anybody else when Microsoft ditches MAPI.
I know it sucks (I too have to deal with Exchange at work 10k PCs vs. 300 Macs) but at least where I work the VIPs are **ALL** running X now (yeee-haw) so we now have IMAP *and* POP turned on.
I see turning POP3 on as a mistake unless it was necessary. I hope that, at least, they disabled POP3 for mailboxes that don't need it.
I too read that the new Mail in Panther says it has 'exchange' support but I'm still willing to bet that it isn't MAPI (but who know maybe I'm wrong).
You're not. Sorry, kids. The only addition appears to be OWA parsing to access public folders.
Originally posted by Moose
There's a difference between being "afraid to touch things" and "not fiddle-farting with a business-critical server's configuration to accommodate a small, vocal minority of users without a mandate from Management." In most companies, changing a server's configuration without management approval (except in emergency cases) is grounds for termination. No groveling. No explaining about non-Outlook mail clients. You are escorted out of the building, and get your personal effects mailed to you. While it's extremely unlikely that enabling a protocol on a production mail server will cause a problem, the way businesses attempt to ensure that no problems will occur is that they don't mess with production servers.
While I do agree with much of what you said, this is just a bad excuse for the real problem that most IS types have in a company where they have 'mostly' wintel users.
More than anyone else IS management should know that if SOME of it's users don't run Windows those users should (within reason) be accommodated. Agreed?
If that's the case then if someone didn't speak up at the planning stage of moving to Exchange and say 'you know we do have users who will need IMAP' then someone was sleeping on the job. The rest of the free world (outside of MS owned corporations) uses either IMAP or POP for it's email services... Asking for that simple level of support should NOT be considered 'over the top' any more than asking for a phone that has all of the numbers between 0 and 9 as well as having those # and * buttons.
Sometimes IS folks seems to forget that their job is to support the computing environment of the company that they work for... If said company allows its workers to buy and use non-wintel systems then a certain level of support should be expected.
To me, being able to check email would seem to fall into that 'minimum level of support' and people shouldn't have to whine to get it. An awful lot of IS types just ignore the 'fringe users' and thats the wrong attitude to take. Then again that's usually their downfall.
Working for the same institute for 15 years supporting Mac using scientists - a computer/os that IS people simply refused to acknowledge allowed me to see the downfall of quite a few managers in the IS group and now they finally have people who don't ignore us.
Yea I admit the change took some time but in the end the inflexible were cast aside.
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
While I do agree with much of what you said, this is just a bad excuse for the real problem that most IS types have in a company where they have 'mostly' wintel users.
More than anyone else IS management should know that if SOME of it's users don't run Windows those users should (within reason) be accommodated. Agreed?
Yes. They should know that. But they don't always.
If that's the case then if someone didn't speak up at the planning stage of moving to Exchange and say 'you know we do have users who will need IMAP' then someone was sleeping on the job. The rest of the free world (outside of MS owned corporations) uses either IMAP or POP for it's email services... Asking for that simple level of support should NOT be considered 'over the top' any more than asking for a phone that has all of the numbers between 0 and 9 as well as having those # and * buttons.
1) Microsoft doesn't own my company. We use a number of its products, because they're the best fit for our organization. Exchange is one of them. When we were looking to replace Domino (because it just wasn't working for us), we looked at several alternatives. Exchange won.
2) What "the rest of the free world" uses to access its mail servers is, largely, irrelevant. I have users that need to access my mail server. My mail server supports four protocols. We standardized on one (MAPI) for common usage, both because it allows the fullest functionality for Exchange, and because the overwhelming majority of users have Outlook 2000 or 2002. If there is a compelling need for somebody to access their mail via another means (POP, IMAP, or OWA), I enable it for that user. Up until Mac OS X, Mac users had a MAPI client in Microsoft Outlook for Macintosh. The need for IMAP access is, relatively speaking, recent. Given that most Exchange deployments predate Mac OS X, let alone Mac OS X clients on the network, the assertion that somebody was necessarily "sleeping on the job" is unfair.
Sometimes IS folks seems to forget that their job is to support the computing environment of the company that they work for... If said company allows its workers to buy and use non-wintel systems then a certain level of support should be expected.
I agree with this. What I take issue with, however, is your implication that Exchange administrators are terrified of enabling IMAP access to mailboxes because it would allow people to get their mail without using Windows, or because the house of cards that they'd worked so hard to build would suddenly come crashing down.
Working for the same institute for 15 years supporting Mac using scientists - a computer/os that IS people simply refused to acknowledge allowed me to see the downfall of quite a few managers in the IS group and now they finally have people who don't ignore us.
Yea I admit the change took some time but in the end the inflexible were cast aside.
That's the normal evolutionary cycle, and I'm happy it's worked out for you.
Originally posted by Moose
I agree with this. What I take issue with, however, is your implication that Exchange administrators are terrified of enabling IMAP access to mailboxes because it would allow people to get their mail without using Windows, or because the house of cards that they'd worked so hard to build would suddenly come crashing down.
Well this is based on how I initially saw things going where I work as well as the large number of posts from people in companies that don't choose to activate IMAP on their exchange server (knowing full well that users in their company will not be able to check their mail without it). And before you say they "sometimes they don't know..." well that isn't an excuse.
If you don't know the makeup of your user base then you have no business holding a position charged with supporting said user base. Pleading ignorance is no excuse...
Looking at the exchange news group on usenet or any 'exchange oriented' message thread on a mac message board shows that this is not a small problem.
Fact:
- These people work for companies with exchange as an email server
- These people have non-windows based machines in their office
- These people have been ignored by their IS group
Ignoring people that your charged with supporting is just wrong...
As for 'the house of cards that they'd worked so hard to build would suddenly come crashing down'...
In Exchange 2000 it really is as simple as checking off an option in the server settings... So if that ISN'T the reason they aren't clicking the 'enable IMAP' checkbox then what other reason could they have?
Just to be nasty?
Poor planning and being too ridged to admit they need to change things??
You tell me...
Dave
Originally posted by DaveGee
You tell me...
I don't speak for others. They could well be tossers.
But you spoke for all Exchange admins. That is why I replied.
Originally posted by Moose
I don't speak for others. They could well be tossers.
But you spoke for all Exchange admins. That is why I replied.
I don't think so...
Here was my initial quote:
"For some reason some Exchange admins REFUSE to click the silly little check box". Notice the word 'some' is used to indicate 'not all'. In other places I used the word 'most' also indicative of 'less than all'. But other than that, this was a fun debate...
Dave