Internal exchange vs hosted exchange

Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
exchange or internal/managed..  is hosted better?  it appears to be
cheaper, but is it better?  

would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange

can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
in fact better ?  thank you


-- 
aliuhz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm

http://forums.techarena.in

0
aliuhz
5/29/2010 9:56:23 PM
windows.server.sbs 1975 articles. 0 followers. Follow

9 Replies
853 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 23

Hosted vs In-house is a very personal thing and depends greatly on how 
comfortable you are with your information on someone else's server, whether 
you are a "lease or buy" person (like a car), and the skill level of your 
staff to maintain.

With that said, there are certainly better comparisons that the link you 
posted.  For example, no 10-user installation needs a $10,000 server, a 
$5,000 "server software licensing" (SBS is less expensive than that, as is 
Window Server Standard), Exchange "Enterprise" (again, SBS has this, if you 
bought it separately for a standalone install, you could buy standard, not 
enterprise), Blackberry has a small business version that is FREE,  and I 
don't buy the $200/month for maintenance upgrades by a consultant figure 
either.

In short, this company did *everything* possible to inflate the stand-alone 
numbers and I would not do business that feels they have to resort to 
unethical and distorted figures to make the sale.

There are certainly valid reasons to consider hosted, but if you go that 
way, I've added this company onto my "not a chance in hell" list of 
businesses to engage with.

-- 
Cliff Galiher
Microsoft has opened the Small Business Server forum on Technet!  Check it 
out! 
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/smallbusinessserver/threads
Addicted to newsgroups?  Read about the NNTP Bridge for MS Forums.

"aliuhz" <aliuhz.4bqwhe@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message 
news:aliuhz.4bqwhe@DoNotSpam.com...
>
> Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
> exchange or internal/managed..  is hosted better?  it appears to be
> cheaper, but is it better?
>
> would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
> http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange
>
> can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
> in fact better ?  thank you
>
>
> -- 
> aliuhz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
> View this thread: 
> http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm
>
> http://forums.techarena.in
> 
0
Cliff
5/29/2010 10:58:29 PM
I agree those numbers are kind of wack...

and like Cliff said this really depends on where you want to go and your 
skill levels.
More and more companies are moving to Hosted email solutions. (CLOUD)
If you are looking at Hosted, May I suggest Microsoft Online Services (BPOS)

If you just needed exchange it's only $5.00/user
And if you'd like SharePoint for Document Control and Live Meeting, and an 
internal IM for only $5.00 more

At $10.00 per user it's cheaper than if you just wanted to use a third party 
Web Conference solution.

You can get a free 30 day 20 user trial and information on how it works at
http://www.BPOSMadeEasy.com
or
http://www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com

Russ

-- 
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com


"Cliff Galiher - MVP" <cgaliher@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:edh97J4$KHA.3176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Hosted vs In-house is a very personal thing and depends greatly on how 
> comfortable you are with your information on someone else's server, 
> whether you are a "lease or buy" person (like a car), and the skill level 
> of your staff to maintain.
>
> With that said, there are certainly better comparisons that the link you 
> posted.  For example, no 10-user installation needs a $10,000 server, a 
> $5,000 "server software licensing" (SBS is less expensive than that, as is 
> Window Server Standard), Exchange "Enterprise" (again, SBS has this, if 
> you bought it separately for a standalone install, you could buy standard, 
> not enterprise), Blackberry has a small business version that is FREE, 
> and I don't buy the $200/month for maintenance upgrades by a consultant 
> figure either.
>
> In short, this company did *everything* possible to inflate the 
> stand-alone numbers and I would not do business that feels they have to 
> resort to unethical and distorted figures to make the sale.
>
> There are certainly valid reasons to consider hosted, but if you go that 
> way, I've added this company onto my "not a chance in hell" list of 
> businesses to engage with.
>
> -- 
> Cliff Galiher
> Microsoft has opened the Small Business Server forum on Technet!  Check it 
> out! 
> http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/smallbusinessserver/threads
> Addicted to newsgroups?  Read about the NNTP Bridge for MS Forums.
>
> "aliuhz" <aliuhz.4bqwhe@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message 
> news:aliuhz.4bqwhe@DoNotSpam.com...
>>
>> Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
>> exchange or internal/managed..  is hosted better?  it appears to be
>> cheaper, but is it better?
>>
>> would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
>> http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange
>>
>> can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
>> in fact better ?  thank you
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> aliuhz
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
>> View this thread: 
>> http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm
>>
>> http://forums.techarena.in
>> 
0
Russ
5/29/2010 11:31:50 PM
In article <aliuhz.4bqwhe@DoNotSpam.com>, aliuhz.4bqwhe@DoNotSpam.com 
says...
> 
> Hi, for an office of about 12 people, I'm deciding whether to do hosted
> exchange or internal/managed..  is hosted better?  it appears to be
> cheaper, but is it better?  
> 
> would you say the following link is an accurate depiction of savings?:
> http://www.mpronto.com/lower.php?url=in-house-vs-hosted-exchange
> 
> can anyone recommend some good hosted exchange provider(s) if hosted is
> in fact better ?  thank you

Very cheap, but, since you don't control or own the data, you have to 
ask yourself if you trust them.

A network with 12 users often needs more than Exchange and that need 
means you most likely already have what you need to run SBS.

So, do you have a server?

If you have a server then you could run SBS 2003 or 2008 and your cost 
would not be anywhere near what they suggest.

If you had to buy news (their in-house numbers are bad)

Server: 3,000
SBS Licensing SBS 2008 Standard $1,100
SBS 10 Addtl licenses: $780
BB Server software (free)
Consultant Installation (8 hours)
Monthly costs (1 hour)


Initial investment - keeping in mind that an office of 12 already needs 
a server: $4,880 + Consultant costs

Monthly investment: 1 hour of your time

Hosted Exchange - 12 users $108/month (rounded to $9 from their list)

You can also depreciate the hardware, etc..., you can't do that with 
hosted exchange.

-- 
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little 
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.  
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
0
Leythos
5/30/2010 1:21:28 AM
Wow, thank you for the information.  I thought those prices seemed off,
and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
either- that is just wrong!

So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
exchange.  
Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
conflict with each other)?  

In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up?   I'm
thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN.    I
think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
said above, how important the data is.  It is however an higher initial
cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).  
I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
to find some help here in Southern California).  Again, I appreciate
your advice and opinion.  I will post cost comparison once completed, if
interested.


-- 
aliuhz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm

http://forums.techarena.in

0
aliuhz
5/30/2010 1:44:35 AM
In article <aliuhz.4br4tc@DoNotSpam.com>, aliuhz.4br4tc@DoNotSpam.com 
says...
> 
> Wow, thank you for the information.  I thought those prices seemed off,
> and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
> either- that is just wrong!
> 
> So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
> warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
> file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
> exchange.

You might get a CHEAP server for $1200, but it won't include the 
Operating system for that price.
  
> Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
> conflict with each other)?  
> 
> In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
> get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up?

Any service that is real business class, and RR does offer Business 
Class service, with at least 1 static IP, will work just fine. I run my 
business (as well as 30+ other customers) using Time Warner Road Runner 
business class internet service (others are on T1's and SDSL services).

> I'm
> thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN.

With SBS 2003/2008 there is little chance you will need to use a VPN.

> I
> think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
> said above, how important the data is.  It is however an higher initial
> cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).  
> I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
> am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
> comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
> it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
> charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
> to find some help here in Southern California).  Again, I appreciate
> your advice and opinion.  I will post cost comparison once completed, if
> interested.

You need, if you're a consultant, to join the MS Partner program and 
then purchase the Action Pack, so that you can get SBS 2008 and other 
products for a yearly fee of about $300/$400 depending on the media 
option. You can use the A/P software to run your business and get 10 
licenses for your business use.

Once you have the software you will want to install SBS 3 or 4 times so 
that you get the hang of it, making sure to join a couple workstations 
to the SBS network as well as your AV solution and other things, 
including getting email working for yourself.



-- 
You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little 
voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that.  
Trust yourself.
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
0
Leythos
5/30/2010 2:36:58 AM
Answers inline.

-- 
Cliff Galiher
Microsoft has opened the Small Business Server forum on Technet!  Check it 
out! 
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-us/smallbusinessserver/threads
Addicted to newsgroups?  Read about the NNTP Bridge for MS Forums.

"aliuhz" <aliuhz.4br4tc@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message 
news:aliuhz.4br4tc@DoNotSpam.com...
>
> Wow, thank you for the information.  I thought those prices seemed off,
> and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
> either- that is just wrong!
>
> So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
> warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
> file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
> exchange.
> Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
> conflict with each other)?

$1,200 seems a little low.  If you aren't familiar with SBS then yes, it is 
*designed* to be a file server, domain controller, and run DHCP.  With that 
in mind however, you won't be on a workgroup anymore, but on a domain, so 
the server should be robust enough to help protect that data.  In other 
words, ECC RAM and hardware RAID.  That usually pushes a good server above 
$1,200.

>
> In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
> get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up?   I'm
> thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN.    I
> think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
> said above, how important the data is.  It is however an higher initial
> cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).

You'll want a business-class internet service for email delivery (aka static 
IP, contract allows hanging server off the connection, etc) but it doesn't 
have to be a T1.  I set up many customers with cable and DSL business 
connections.  Just plan acordingly, and remember that this is a business. 
PROTECT that connection with a good firewall.

> I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
> am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
> comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
> it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
> charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
> to find some help here in Southern California).  Again, I appreciate
> your advice and opinion.  I will post cost comparison once completed, if
> interested.

The good news is you won't have to implement Exchange "on your own."  One of 
the features that makes SBS great is that the installation process and 
wizards configure Exchange with some great best practices out of the gate 
and automate great deal of the process that you'd have to do manually in an 
enterprise situation.  With that said, it *is* still a server and requires 
some skill to maintain.  I'd recommend picking up a good book on SBS from 
Amazon if you choose to go this route.
 

0
Cliff
5/30/2010 3:51:55 AM
Again, many thanks!  I think this pretty much sums it up financially,
and was educational for me as it helped me see things from a different
perspective (as did this thread):
http://blog.bruteforcetech.com/index.php/archives/498 (pasted below).
...seems like everyone is inflating prices to emphasize how bad their
hosted services are needed.  I like Microsoft's prices the best (Thanks
Russ, I'll be in touch when I find a client to go the hosted route).
Leythos- thanks for the recommendation on joining the MS partner
program, when I have some spare $ I will definitely do so- looks like
some pretty nice benefits there and the challenge of staying current is
appealing.  




Exchange server vs. Google hosted
Google Mail vs. Exchange Server
April 6th, 2010 by Paul Sterley | Filed under Exchange Server, In the
Exchange Box, LOB Software, Not in the Exchange Box. Not long ago, I
received an e-mail from the owner of a business that I provide IT
services to. It was forwarded from an intern at the company. Here is
what it said:

From: [Intern]
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:06 PM
To: [Owner]
Cc: [Admin person]
Subject: Way to save money?

I was doing some research into this, and it may be a way for our company
to cut some costs. Google has a more efficient and easy way to control
email and calendars than Microsoft exchange server. It removes the need
for servers, tapes, etc., for our email system and saves money as well.
Granted I don�t know what we pay for the server and IT support, but they
break down the costs on the website.

A great benefit: it allows employees to choose to use outlook or Gmail
as the client (ie: don�t have to train people who are accustomed to
outlook and don�t want to switch � not that Gmail is complicated). We
keep all the same email addresses and such, however it allows EVERYONE
to check their email and calendars from home, much easier than with the
exchange server, and Google syncs the calendar, contacts and emails with
outlook so everyone has the same information.
� Because chat is part of Google, quick answers can be received from
within the office, rather than having to write up an email, yet it is
stored as an email. Below is the link to information on the business
premium version of Google apps.
� 25 GB storage per person is also a huge factor. I believe that may be
larger than what we currently have with MS exchange.
� Email archiving of up to 10 years of retention
� Better spam controllers (we wouldn�t need our specialty spam
software)
� Fully secure web server
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html There are also
some videos from some large business who use Google rather than
Microsoft here.

This is the link to the cost savings calculator:
http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/messaging_value.html I find
it really interesting the difference in costs. If we were able to save
over $100,000 in a 3-year time period by switching, maybe it�s worth
it?

Take a look and let me know what you think. I was trying to explain
Google Wave to you both last week when we were discussing marketing, and
how I think it is the start of what is to come in business
communication, and I think Google apps is also in this realm.
Personally, I know that I love Gmail and all the applications associated
with it, and I think I can speak for [admin person] in that she agrees
with me (we�ve both mentioned the �conversation� aspects of Gmail which
are incredibly useful at helping organize your inbox).

Thanks,
[An intern at one of my clients]



Here is my response to the customer:

Summary: Switching to Google e-mail will increase your e-mail costs by
40 percent and complicate your infrastructure by decentralizing it.

Truth in advertising:
I think that large enterprises that have entirely different network and
software licensing infrastructure from yours might be able to save some
money with this. They have huge costs for servers and software that are
dedicated to running their e-mail system and don�t have any other roles.
Instead, small businesses have less costly servers ($3500) that perform
multiple roles, one of which is e-mail.

Google�s figures assume that you�ll be buying two servers at $5,000 each
JUST to run your e-mail, that you�ll somehow be paying $3,193 for a ten
user license of Exchange, which is about twice the actual cost, assuming
a standalone Exchange server that is not part of Small Business Server.
The SBS edition combines the e-mail license as part of the overall
license, further reducing the cost.

There is also an assumption that your IT admin will spend a bunch of
hours specifically working on the e-mail system. That may be true for
large businesses, but I�ve hardly touched your e-mail system in years.

The figures on the Google website are inflated, designed to catch your
eye. They are not accurate figures for a company of your size and with
your e-mail usage.

Also, outsourcing the e-mail to Google will not eliminate the need to
have a server or backup system. You�ll still need that for your files,
centralized control of user accounts, antivirus control, VPN access,
accounting software, etc. So you�re only affecting one component �
email. But you�re not eliminating it, you�re moving it further from your
control. Also, someone in your company (or paid by your company) still
has to manage it whether it�s at Google or in your office. The software
licenses for it are tied in with your licenses for the other components
of the server. You�ve already paid those licenses.
Your actual IT costs:
Nearly all of the money you have spent maintaining your network has been
on things like printers, server OS and file backups, workstation issues,
firewall, switch, etc. These other components of your infrastructure
would still be needed to run your business and to access and work with
your Google Mail. The only money you have spent on e-mail was a result
of having more than one e-mail account on your computers, which was not
related to hosting your own e-mail.

Your IT costs through BFTech from 3/24/2009 through today have been
$3540. That�s just the labor. You�ve also purchased a server. Your total
costs are probably more like $7500 � but that included replacing some
equipment that was more than 5 years old. Looking through the
descriptions of those costs, I see about $350 of that being related to
e-mail � your home e-mail, NOT driftmier.com e-mail. You�re paying about
$250 per year for the Postini anti-spam service, and a percentage of
your antivirus cost is e-mail related. Those are the only ongoing costs
that are specifically tied to your e-mail. Let�s call it $500/year
combined.

When it is time to replace the Proliant server, which runs your files,
printers, user logons and e-mail, that might cost you $10k if I gouge
you mercilessly for labor costs and make you upgrade to SBS 2008� but
the portion of that cost which will be related to e-mail will be about
15% � so that�s $1500 you�ll be spending on maintaining your e-mail.
That happens about every 3-4 years, so that�s between $375 and $500 that
can be attributed to e-mail. Let�s say for sake of argument that you
replace your server every three years.

So how are you going to save $100,000 in three years when you�re only
spending about $2000 in three years on your e-mail?

You�ll save $2 per mailbox per month ($2 x 10 users x 12 months =
$250/yr) by not needing to have Postini. That means each month, you can
buy an extra pizza and a couple of beers with your savings. Oh, but wait
� you�re going to have to pay Google $3,302/year for the privilege of
hosting your e-mail with them. So much for the pizza and beer.

In fact, let�s look at that a little more closely. Right now you�re
spending about $2000/year in e-mail related costs. Google wants
$3302/year for 10 users.

Aren�t numbers great? We can play with them all day and make them say
different things.
Features:
Easy access from home/mobile � Right now, your users can check their
e-mail from home by just going to [OWA URL]. The logon process for that
is no more difficult than the logon process for Google. Their entire
mailbox is in there, not just their Inbox, calendar, and contacts. If
your users have a Windows Mobile smartphone, or an iPhone, or a Droid,
or a Palm smartphone, or a Samsung smartphone, or any number of other
mobile phones that support Microsoft ActiveSync, they can work with
their e-mail, calendar, contacts, and tasks right from their mobile
device.  This support is just as widespread as the Google mail thing �
maybe more so at this point.

Chat -  that looks nifty � but if it stores as an e-mail, why not send
an e-mail using a web browser, phone, or mail client? Microsoft used to
have an IM component built into Exchange. They stopped including it
because nobody was using it.

E-mail Conversations and organizing � Outlook has many different views
and ways to organize your e-mail, including a Conversation view. This is
not an Exchange vs. Google thing. It�s a feature of Outlook, and you can
use it no matter what e-mail system you are using.

Storage capacity � 25 GB per user is definitely more than Exchange
server supports at your current license level � but who needs that much?
Your mailbox, that you have been building up for more than ten years, is
6.5 GB in size. [Intern�s] is 1.2 GB. If we needed more capacity, we
could upgrade your Exchange licensing and expand to meet the need, and
still come in below Google�s pricing in the medium to long term.

E-mail archiving � also nifty, and if at some point in the future you
need it, we should evaluate the costs to implement it on your existing
server or migrate to a service like Google mail that includes it.

Integrated anti-spam � that�s a good feature. I like that. See the
comment above regarding pizza and beer.

Security � Has anyone hacked your Outlook Web Access server lately?
The bottom line:
You have to support a network infrastructure anyway, for reasons other
than e-mail. E-mail is a relatively small portion of your IT costs. You
are utilizing a very small percentage of what your Exchange server is
capable of. It can be made to do much more.
Google is �the new hotness� � but is your Exchange system �old and
busted�?
I don�t think so.



I also submitted this thread to some other consultants on an e-mail
distribution list, and here are their responses:

-=-=-

Ellis:

The number one reason I�ve found to recommend an internal e-mail system
over any hosted solution is how can a missing message be traced that the
business is critically dependent on?  That is the kind of situation
where the ability for us to be able to dive into the message tracking
logs, filters and other connectivity systems to find out where the
connection failed, and this can provide value that outweighs the cost of
the entire e-mail system if the message is valuable enough.

-=-=-

Eugene:

By the way, I laughed when I saw the $100,000 in 3 years thing.  When
has this customer ever spent $100,000 in 3 years on all their IT (let
alone the email portion, as you point out)?  Most small to medium-small
business don�t spend that kind of money, so it�s patently impossible for
them to _save_ that kind of money.  And since savings are always a
proper (obviously) fraction of spend that is well below unity (i.e. well
below 100%) � because the new vendor damn well wants a piece of the pie
to take to their own bank � they�d have to spend multiple times that �
so, multiple hundreds of thousands per 3 years.  Doesn�t happen, as you
point out � you set them up with $3,500 budget servers, reasonable
compromise backups plans (i.e. no gold-plated tapes stored in
nobel-gas-filled earthquake-proof offsite vaults), and only as much
consulting as they need to make their email and OWA work in a normal
fashion, and your customer�s costs are quite reasonable.

Regarding Intern�s mention of Google Wave: it is not a real thing at
this time, and there�s no indication anytime soon that it will be. 
Therefore it is a non-feature, with no importance to the client.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/18/google_wave_drowning/  �
�Google Wave isn�t even close to being ready yet for the average user�
(published 9 weeks ago)
-=-=-

Joe:

When it breaks, who do you call and what do you expect?  Notice that
Wikipedia.com was offline today?  At this point it�s nice to have a bit
of control.  You know what you have, you don�t have to worry about a
failure outside of your control.  If something breaks, you can walk
over, tap the person on the shoulder and ask what the issue is, and when
things will be back up.  Who are you to Google?  How important is your
business working to them?

Lets say you want to cut down on costs, what can you cut from Google? 
You can have me come in less, do no upgrades, and for the most part
things should continue to run at a minimal cost.

I�ll also toss in the large file between users � where it has to be
uploaded to the server and then pulled down again (rather than staying
on the LAN).  It�s not like the client gets to turn off a server by
doing this.  All it�s doing is replacing part of a software package
that�s already owned and implemented, to let�s change, and this is how
many hours of billable work it is to change.  Change like this is
expensive for no savings.

Easy math = My Hourly Rate x Hours to Migrate all existing data into
this new setup = more than you would save in 2-3 years time by
changing.

-=-=-

Patty:

Agreed on all counts.  I don�t think g-mail tech support could be a
replacement for a consultant or on-site help desk when problems arise. 
That being said, I also think it would probably be the consultant
dealing with that g-mail support and charging the client in turn for the
time spent dealing with them rather than just solving the problem
directly.  Thanks to Microsoft SBS, the e-mail portion of IT expense is
small and would be extremely difficult for any outside vendor to compete
with from a cost or functionality standpoint.

-=-=-

Ken:

I think you and others have nailed it on a number of counts,
particularly with the point about flexible IT budgeting. Customers like
being able to get lean when they have to and then ramp up quickly when
they get busy.

-=-=-

Here�s a good account of what can go wrong with this type of service as
well:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/cloud-computing2/Networking-Forecast-Cloudy-with-a-Chance-of-Indifference.aspx


-- 
aliuhz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
View this thread: http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm

http://forums.techarena.in

0
aliuhz
5/30/2010 5:12:37 AM
Yes the Microsoft partner is great if you get the Action Pack
(They added a name to the end of it now?)

http://partner.microsoft.com

BPOS is great for people who don't have technical skills and still want 
exchange.
Russ

-- 
Russell Grover - SBITS.Biz [SBS-MVP]
MCP, MCPS, MCNPS, SBSC
Remote Small Business Server/Computer Support - www.SBITS.Biz
BPOS - Microsoft Online Services - www.Microsoft-Online-Services.com


"aliuhz" <aliuhz.4brfxa@DoNotSpam.com> wrote in message 
news:aliuhz.4brfxa@DoNotSpam.com...
>
> Again, many thanks!  I think this pretty much sums it up financially,
> and was educational for me as it helped me see things from a different
> perspective (as did this thread):
> http://blog.bruteforcetech.com/index.php/archives/498 (pasted below).
> ..seems like everyone is inflating prices to emphasize how bad their
> hosted services are needed.  I like Microsoft's prices the best (Thanks
> Russ, I'll be in touch when I find a client to go the hosted route).
> Leythos- thanks for the recommendation on joining the MS partner
> program, when I have some spare $ I will definitely do so- looks like
> some pretty nice benefits there and the challenge of staying current is
> appealing.
>
>
>
>
> Exchange server vs. Google hosted
> Google Mail vs. Exchange Server
> April 6th, 2010 by Paul Sterley | Filed under Exchange Server, In the
> Exchange Box, LOB Software, Not in the Exchange Box. Not long ago, I
> received an e-mail from the owner of a business that I provide IT
> services to. It was forwarded from an intern at the company. Here is
> what it said:
>
> From: [Intern]
> Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 12:06 PM
> To: [Owner]
> Cc: [Admin person]
> Subject: Way to save money?
>
> I was doing some research into this, and it may be a way for our company
> to cut some costs. Google has a more efficient and easy way to control
> email and calendars than Microsoft exchange server. It removes the need
> for servers, tapes, etc., for our email system and saves money as well.
> Granted I don't know what we pay for the server and IT support, but they
> break down the costs on the website.
>
> A great benefit: it allows employees to choose to use outlook or Gmail
> as the client (ie: don't have to train people who are accustomed to
> outlook and don't want to switch - not that Gmail is complicated). We
> keep all the same email addresses and such, however it allows EVERYONE
> to check their email and calendars from home, much easier than with the
> exchange server, and Google syncs the calendar, contacts and emails with
> outlook so everyone has the same information.
> . Because chat is part of Google, quick answers can be received from
> within the office, rather than having to write up an email, yet it is
> stored as an email. Below is the link to information on the business
> premium version of Google apps.
> . 25 GB storage per person is also a huge factor. I believe that may be
> larger than what we currently have with MS exchange.
> . Email archiving of up to 10 years of retention
> . Better spam controllers (we wouldn't need our specialty spam
> software)
> . Fully secure web server
> http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/index.html There are also
> some videos from some large business who use Google rather than
> Microsoft here.
>
> This is the link to the cost savings calculator:
> http://www.google.com/apps/intl/en/business/messaging_value.html I find
> it really interesting the difference in costs. If we were able to save
> over $100,000 in a 3-year time period by switching, maybe it's worth
> it?
>
> Take a look and let me know what you think. I was trying to explain
> Google Wave to you both last week when we were discussing marketing, and
> how I think it is the start of what is to come in business
> communication, and I think Google apps is also in this realm.
> Personally, I know that I love Gmail and all the applications associated
> with it, and I think I can speak for [admin person] in that she agrees
> with me (we've both mentioned the "conversation" aspects of Gmail which
> are incredibly useful at helping organize your inbox).
>
> Thanks,
> [An intern at one of my clients]
>
>
>
> Here is my response to the customer:
>
> Summary: Switching to Google e-mail will increase your e-mail costs by
> 40 percent and complicate your infrastructure by decentralizing it.
>
> Truth in advertising:
> I think that large enterprises that have entirely different network and
> software licensing infrastructure from yours might be able to save some
> money with this. They have huge costs for servers and software that are
> dedicated to running their e-mail system and don't have any other roles.
> Instead, small businesses have less costly servers ($3500) that perform
> multiple roles, one of which is e-mail.
>
> Google's figures assume that you'll be buying two servers at $5,000 each
> JUST to run your e-mail, that you'll somehow be paying $3,193 for a ten
> user license of Exchange, which is about twice the actual cost, assuming
> a standalone Exchange server that is not part of Small Business Server.
> The SBS edition combines the e-mail license as part of the overall
> license, further reducing the cost.
>
> There is also an assumption that your IT admin will spend a bunch of
> hours specifically working on the e-mail system. That may be true for
> large businesses, but I've hardly touched your e-mail system in years.
>
> The figures on the Google website are inflated, designed to catch your
> eye. They are not accurate figures for a company of your size and with
> your e-mail usage.
>
> Also, outsourcing the e-mail to Google will not eliminate the need to
> have a server or backup system. You'll still need that for your files,
> centralized control of user accounts, antivirus control, VPN access,
> accounting software, etc. So you're only affecting one component -
> email. But you're not eliminating it, you're moving it further from your
> control. Also, someone in your company (or paid by your company) still
> has to manage it whether it's at Google or in your office. The software
> licenses for it are tied in with your licenses for the other components
> of the server. You've already paid those licenses.
> Your actual IT costs:
> Nearly all of the money you have spent maintaining your network has been
> on things like printers, server OS and file backups, workstation issues,
> firewall, switch, etc. These other components of your infrastructure
> would still be needed to run your business and to access and work with
> your Google Mail. The only money you have spent on e-mail was a result
> of having more than one e-mail account on your computers, which was not
> related to hosting your own e-mail.
>
> Your IT costs through BFTech from 3/24/2009 through today have been
> $3540. That's just the labor. You've also purchased a server. Your total
> costs are probably more like $7500 - but that included replacing some
> equipment that was more than 5 years old. Looking through the
> descriptions of those costs, I see about $350 of that being related to
> e-mail - your home e-mail, NOT driftmier.com e-mail. You're paying about
> $250 per year for the Postini anti-spam service, and a percentage of
> your antivirus cost is e-mail related. Those are the only ongoing costs
> that are specifically tied to your e-mail. Let's call it $500/year
> combined.
>
> When it is time to replace the Proliant server, which runs your files,
> printers, user logons and e-mail, that might cost you $10k if I gouge
> you mercilessly for labor costs and make you upgrade to SBS 2008- but
> the portion of that cost which will be related to e-mail will be about
> 15% - so that's $1500 you'll be spending on maintaining your e-mail.
> That happens about every 3-4 years, so that's between $375 and $500 that
> can be attributed to e-mail. Let's say for sake of argument that you
> replace your server every three years.
>
> So how are you going to save $100,000 in three years when you're only
> spending about $2000 in three years on your e-mail?
>
> You'll save $2 per mailbox per month ($2 x 10 users x 12 months =
> $250/yr) by not needing to have Postini. That means each month, you can
> buy an extra pizza and a couple of beers with your savings. Oh, but wait
> - you're going to have to pay Google $3,302/year for the privilege of
> hosting your e-mail with them. So much for the pizza and beer.
>
> In fact, let's look at that a little more closely. Right now you're
> spending about $2000/year in e-mail related costs. Google wants
> $3302/year for 10 users.
>
> Aren't numbers great? We can play with them all day and make them say
> different things.
> Features:
> Easy access from home/mobile - Right now, your users can check their
> e-mail from home by just going to [OWA URL]. The logon process for that
> is no more difficult than the logon process for Google. Their entire
> mailbox is in there, not just their Inbox, calendar, and contacts. If
> your users have a Windows Mobile smartphone, or an iPhone, or a Droid,
> or a Palm smartphone, or a Samsung smartphone, or any number of other
> mobile phones that support Microsoft ActiveSync, they can work with
> their e-mail, calendar, contacts, and tasks right from their mobile
> device.  This support is just as widespread as the Google mail thing -
> maybe more so at this point.
>
> Chat -  that looks nifty - but if it stores as an e-mail, why not send
> an e-mail using a web browser, phone, or mail client? Microsoft used to
> have an IM component built into Exchange. They stopped including it
> because nobody was using it.
>
> E-mail Conversations and organizing - Outlook has many different views
> and ways to organize your e-mail, including a Conversation view. This is
> not an Exchange vs. Google thing. It's a feature of Outlook, and you can
> use it no matter what e-mail system you are using.
>
> Storage capacity - 25 GB per user is definitely more than Exchange
> server supports at your current license level - but who needs that much?
> Your mailbox, that you have been building up for more than ten years, is
> 6.5 GB in size. [Intern's] is 1.2 GB. If we needed more capacity, we
> could upgrade your Exchange licensing and expand to meet the need, and
> still come in below Google's pricing in the medium to long term.
>
> E-mail archiving - also nifty, and if at some point in the future you
> need it, we should evaluate the costs to implement it on your existing
> server or migrate to a service like Google mail that includes it.
>
> Integrated anti-spam - that's a good feature. I like that. See the
> comment above regarding pizza and beer.
>
> Security - Has anyone hacked your Outlook Web Access server lately?
> The bottom line:
> You have to support a network infrastructure anyway, for reasons other
> than e-mail. E-mail is a relatively small portion of your IT costs. You
> are utilizing a very small percentage of what your Exchange server is
> capable of. It can be made to do much more.
> Google is "the new hotness" - but is your Exchange system "old and
> busted"?
> I don't think so.
>
>
>
> I also submitted this thread to some other consultants on an e-mail
> distribution list, and here are their responses:
>
> -=-=-
>
> Ellis:
>
> The number one reason I've found to recommend an internal e-mail system
> over any hosted solution is how can a missing message be traced that the
> business is critically dependent on?  That is the kind of situation
> where the ability for us to be able to dive into the message tracking
> logs, filters and other connectivity systems to find out where the
> connection failed, and this can provide value that outweighs the cost of
> the entire e-mail system if the message is valuable enough.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Eugene:
>
> By the way, I laughed when I saw the $100,000 in 3 years thing.  When
> has this customer ever spent $100,000 in 3 years on all their IT (let
> alone the email portion, as you point out)?  Most small to medium-small
> business don't spend that kind of money, so it's patently impossible for
> them to _save_ that kind of money.  And since savings are always a
> proper (obviously) fraction of spend that is well below unity (i.e. well
> below 100%) - because the new vendor damn well wants a piece of the pie
> to take to their own bank - they'd have to spend multiple times that -
> so, multiple hundreds of thousands per 3 years.  Doesn't happen, as you
> point out - you set them up with $3,500 budget servers, reasonable
> compromise backups plans (i.e. no gold-plated tapes stored in
> nobel-gas-filled earthquake-proof offsite vaults), and only as much
> consulting as they need to make their email and OWA work in a normal
> fashion, and your customer's costs are quite reasonable.
>
> Regarding Intern's mention of Google Wave: it is not a real thing at
> this time, and there's no indication anytime soon that it will be.
> Therefore it is a non-feature, with no importance to the client.
> See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/18/google_wave_drowning/  -
> "Google Wave isn't even close to being ready yet for the average user"
> (published 9 weeks ago)
> -=-=-
>
> Joe:
>
> When it breaks, who do you call and what do you expect?  Notice that
> Wikipedia.com was offline today?  At this point it's nice to have a bit
> of control.  You know what you have, you don't have to worry about a
> failure outside of your control.  If something breaks, you can walk
> over, tap the person on the shoulder and ask what the issue is, and when
> things will be back up.  Who are you to Google?  How important is your
> business working to them?
>
> Lets say you want to cut down on costs, what can you cut from Google?
> You can have me come in less, do no upgrades, and for the most part
> things should continue to run at a minimal cost.
>
> I'll also toss in the large file between users - where it has to be
> uploaded to the server and then pulled down again (rather than staying
> on the LAN).  It's not like the client gets to turn off a server by
> doing this.  All it's doing is replacing part of a software package
> that's already owned and implemented, to let's change, and this is how
> many hours of billable work it is to change.  Change like this is
> expensive for no savings.
>
> Easy math = My Hourly Rate x Hours to Migrate all existing data into
> this new setup = more than you would save in 2-3 years time by
> changing.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Patty:
>
> Agreed on all counts.  I don't think g-mail tech support could be a
> replacement for a consultant or on-site help desk when problems arise.
> That being said, I also think it would probably be the consultant
> dealing with that g-mail support and charging the client in turn for the
> time spent dealing with them rather than just solving the problem
> directly.  Thanks to Microsoft SBS, the e-mail portion of IT expense is
> small and would be extremely difficult for any outside vendor to compete
> with from a cost or functionality standpoint.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Ken:
>
> I think you and others have nailed it on a number of counts,
> particularly with the point about flexible IT budgeting. Customers like
> being able to get lean when they have to and then ramp up quickly when
> they get busy.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Here's a good account of what can go wrong with this type of service as
> well:
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/cloud-computing2/Networking-Forecast-Cloudy-with-a-Chance-of-Indifference.aspx
>
>
> -- 
> aliuhz
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> aliuhz's Profile: http://forums.techarena.in/members/226310.htm
> View this thread: 
> http://forums.techarena.in/small-business-server/1342047.htm
>
> http://forums.techarena.in
> 
0
Russ
5/30/2010 6:25:41 AM
aliuhz wrote:
> Wow, thank you for the information.  I thought those prices seemed off,
> and you're right, I wouldn't do business with a company like that
> either- that is just wrong!
>
> So in further evaluating, we could actually get a server with good
> warranty, and SBS 2008 for approximately $1200, that will also work as
> file server, domain controller and dhcp server in addition to hosting
> exchange.  
> Does this sound OK (I mean, will running all of these services cause
> conflict with each other)?  
>
> In addition to having the Exchange server, do we *need* T1 or could we
> get away with Time Warner high speed- 18Mbps down, .96(!) up?   I'm
> thinking we'll need an upgrade if we are also going to use VPN.    I
> think the cost is not so bad to host our own, it's just a matter of like
> said above, how important the data is.  It is however an higher initial
> cost (or investment, depending on how you look at it).  
> I still have to calculate/compare consulting costs, because although I
> am familiar with 2008, I'm still learning Exchange and don't yet feel
> comfortable enough to implement it on my own (I could make it work, but
> it would result in unnecessary cost to the customer and I don't want to
> charge for something I am still learning by trial and error so I'll need
> to find some help here in Southern California).  Again, I appreciate
> your advice and opinion.  I will post cost comparison once completed, if
> interested.
>
>
>   
That Dell $1200 is rock bottom and IMHO needs to be beefed up.
0
Susan
5/30/2010 6:53:15 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Outlook - Exchange Rule ?
We are currently using Outlook 2000 SP3 with Exchange 2000 Standard SP3 on a W2k SP4 server. To work around the 16 gig limitation of the Information Store, I want to create a rule within Outlook to move emails messages older than 6 months to a user public folder within Exchange. The idea would be similar to the way auto-archiving works except I don't want the email to be archived in a pst file. Through the rules wizard I can move emails to a specific folder based on dates range, but these dates are static. Is there any way to either adjust a rule to work with the current date (i.e. 'al...

Outlook97 can't access Exchange Server 5.0
Hi, When ever I try to go into the control panel and configure the mail option, I receive a "information store couldn't be open" error message. I've removed and reinstalled Outlook97 but still receive the same message. I've also installed client for Exchange with the same result. Workstation: Windows NT 4.0 w/office97 What would be the proper way to resolve the problem? Thanks! "Travis S." <stravis@hotmail.com> wrote: >When ever I try to go into the control panel and configure the mail option, >I receive a "information store couldn't...

Can you rename a Exchange server?
Can you change the name of an Exchange 2003 server? Reason for asking is I am migrating to a new Exchange 2003 server. After the migration I would like to take the old server offline and rename the new server. This will save me from having to touch each workstation to reconfigure the outlook client. Others will give a more complete answer (with links), but the short answer is that there shouldn't be any need to do that. Just set up the new server in the same Exchange org as the current one. Move the mailboxes. When a user connects for the first time, they will automatically be mo...

Question about chart vs. pivot table
I need to display some data that I would like to display in a chart and/or table, but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to do it. This is the situation. In one row, I have a series of 0's and 1's the represent yes and no. The column for each is a separate entity. Each column is really irrelevant to what I'm trying to figure out other than the total number of columns. What I am trying to chart is what percentage of all of the columns contain a 0 (no) and what percentage contain a 1 (yes). It looks sort of like the below: col 1 col 2 col 3 col...

Internal Error
I get a "Money has encountered an Internal Error" message when I start Money. It does it twice, then goes back to my desktop. Any ideas? I have backups. Thanks. Try to start the sample.mny file - you can double click the file to launch it. Do not change it. Exit if it displays okay. If that fails too then the question is. did you change anything to your system like software or hardware? arthur == On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:41:01 -0700, William <William@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >I get a "Money has encountered an Internal Error" message when I start ...

http mail
With OWA, we can access email via the url "serverName/exchange". Does anyone know if we can rename the virtual directory name "exchange" to something else ? I looked at the iis manager for the exchange site property, it wouldn't allow us the change the name. Any suggestions ? ...

Excel Hyperlinks
To my hero, My hyperlinks degrade. They have the error "Reference is not valid" eventhough the hyperlink worked previously. I am creating a resource spreadsheet. To search this spreadsheet I have created a network of internal hyperlinks. The links are to different cells on the same worksheet and on other worksheets within the workbook. The hyperlinks all work fine, even after closing the file and reopening it later. For some reason, the links are "corupted?" I do not change the location of the file (the location should be irrelevent if the links are int...

MS Exchange Server 2003 Registry Settings
Hi, Can anybody give some pointer where I could find all the Registry Settings relevant to MS Exchange Server 2003? Thanks in Advance. Vinay On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 06:15:00 -0800, vinay <vinay@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > >Hi, > >Can anybody give some pointer where I could find all the Registry >Settings relevant to MS Exchange Server 2003? > >Thanks in Advance. > >Vinay I dont think you will find something like that. Whats the goal? If you want make sure your installation is optimal, download and run Exbpa against it. I am performing the backup ...

Slow internal delivery for a few emails
Hi All Scenario is thus: Small exchange setup, 400 users across 4 servers in two sites. Lots of network memory and CPU to spare I ran a trial promodag for a couple of weeks running to look at internal delivery speed 99.6% gets delivered within 5 minutes (as expected)... It's the .4 percent that's causing trouble as it amounts to 600 emails. The max size of a message is 10MB so it's not big attachments, I don't think 600 people are using "do not send before" and don't _think_ it's anything to do with people re-syncing from being offline. So what can it b...

Exchange 5.5 Relay Question
All- I'm planning on implementing a mail relay gateway for Spam/AV reasons. It will be with W2K/IIS/SMTP Relay. My question is where/how do I set Exchange 5.5 to relay all outbound mail to the relay gateway server? Is this the correct way to do this? Also, is the easiest way to implement is giving my new mail gateway the same external address as my current email server for DNS reasons and setting the relay for incoming mail to the 5.5 box and setting outbound mail back to the gateway box? Thanks in advance for any answers! Darius Hi Darius, Yes, leave your DNS as is, and chan...

Exchange Server 2003 #7
Does anyone know how to check if there were any blocked emails? What I have is exchange server 2003 getting email from an external pop3 server then delivering the email to differwnt mailboxes within my company. I have been having a problem getting ALL the mail. I think some of it is being blocked somewhere. Thanks in advance, Alma In news:6C3D7561-926F-429C-88EE-A3EA8091A7BB@microsoft.com, Alma <Alma@discussions.microsoft.com> typed: > Does anyone know how to check if there were any blocked emails? What > I have is exchange server 2003 getting email from an external pop3 >...

Questions on Exchange 2003 (smtp & exch attributes)
Good day, Well bit by bit my exchange migration is proceeding. I'm quite impressed with the tools available for this procedure and hope the project wraps up without incident (touch wood). Having said that, I do have 2 questions - one on smtp (5.5 <> 03) that wasn't really covered in the deployment guide and another on recipient exchange attributes (which is just due to my inexperience with the product). SMTP. - Our 5.5 server (192.168.0.1) is currently running IMS and a smtp connector to the 2003 box, mail flows both ways fine. Our firewall routes mail from our valid...

internal and internal domain name
Hi all My domain/exchange server are set to internaldomain.local i.e. if I create a user the user e-mail address is user@internaldomain.local . Now I want to register a domain on the internet so that my user(s) can receive/send e-mail to external. Once I register my domain externaldomain.com and have my SOA records out there with something like 10 mail.externaldomain.com IP_Address MX will the mail sent to user@externaldomain.com be delivered to user@internaldomain.local? Thanks In news:%23LmpxqW9FHA.3804@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl, AAFC <nospamaafc@comcast.net> ...

URL Error Hitting Internal CRM
I have set up a CRM 3.0 server and all looks good... but when I try to hit the CRM intranet site that was created during the installation (http://myserver:5555) I have a problem from my XP clients. Basically when the client hits that url it goes to the site but IE then immediatly closes. When I do this as an admin from the server I get the window stating something like "crm is going to open another IE from crm and close the calling IE" I can then choose to close the existing IE and the new IE is launched into CRM. Clients get nothing and new new IE is launched. Is there s...

Exchange 2003 Recipient Policy Question
I would like to use a recipient policy to implement a company-wide email retention policy. The policy is somewhat lax, however - we're only applying the policy to the Inbox and Sent Items proper, and NOT to user-created folders beneath those two default folders. I cannot tell from the recipient policy setup template whether subfolders will be affected, allthough I *think* they will. Can anyone confirm? If the recipient policy will automatically apply to subfolders, is there any way to modify it to stop that behavior? - Patrick W. ...

exchange sent folder
We are sending email via exchange from SmtpClient. email is sent fine but it isn't appearing in my sent folder from exchange - my email is the from email. Any ideas? Darin *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com *** ...

Rule to filter mails from same exchange server
Hi All, In the outlook 2000, how we can create a rule to move messages from same exchange server to another folder? I created a rule to move the messages if the sender's address contains our domain name. But that doesn't work...may be bz, if the msg is from same exchange server, it won't include the domain name part in the sender's id. Pls help. Rgds SR ...

Exchange sever is full
How do i check the size of my mailbox store? Is ther a way to delete stuff in it to make it smaller? Does it normally fill up, or does this mean i have a larger problem? Thanks for any help in advance. Steve The Exchange Information Sotres do NOT autoshrink when you delete email, but you may do an offile defrag of the IS to shrink the overall size of the edb files (delete whitespace for DB). Has your IS reached the 16GB limit or have you run out of disk space? Patrick Rouse Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server >-----Original Message----- >How do i check the size of my mailbox store?...

Trace origin of internal email message to internal user
I have "User A" who received an email from "User B", but "User B" claims she never sent that message. The message doesn't show up in her Outlook "sent items" folder. Can I trace the origin of an internal email message. I would like to at the very least find which computer the message was sent from. Hi, "Legendsfan" <spam@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:OtB8$xnHFHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >I have "User A" who received an email from "User B", but "User B" claims >she never sen...

Outlook 2003 BCM and Exchange 5.5
Is Outlook 2003 BCM compatible with Exchange 5.5..? I installed it as an add on...and it doens't work. Any ideas/advice would be helpful. Thanx in advance. No, BCM doesn't work with Exchange. -- Aloha, -Ben- Ben M. Schorr, OneNote-MVP http://home.hawaii.rr.com/schorr **I apologize but I am unable to respond to direct requests for assistance. Please post questions and replies here in the newsgroup. Mahalo! "Jim C" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:ab0701c3b85a$d85fcbb0$a601280a@phx.gbl... > Is Outlook 2003 BCM compatible with Exch...

Revisited
Previously I was seeking a way to hook up Treo 6000 and Exchange 2003, but I have found so far the only way for messages to arrive from Exchange to Treo was to have PC Monitor along with Active Sync (Verizon / Palm software) on the desktop - it monitors the person's mail from Outlook/Exchange and relays it to the TREO. Basically, like Blackberry, it requires an intermediate software or middleware for the relay to work. Does anyone of a better solution andbriefly explain it? Better means not requiring middleware. VV wrote: > Previously I was seeking a way to hook up Treo 600...

Exchange 2003 #24
Did any one knows how to automate the process of reserving meeting rooms through Exchange 2003 Good starting point here http://www.slipstick.com/calendar/skedresource.htm "Alaa Shaheen" <ashaheen@aedegypt.org> wrote in message news:412d01c4730e$56d20f80$a301280a@phx.gbl... > Did any one knows how to automate the process of > reserving meeting rooms through Exchange 2003 | Did any one knows how to automate the process of | reserving meeting rooms through Exchange 2003 | If your are looking for a method to enable users to book resource (or meeting) rooms, then you ...

Spam sent from outside to our internal users, from our internal users addresses!!! E2k
I've seent this problem alot, but it hasn't haunted me for a while until today. Getting messages frmo users@mydomain.com, to users@mydomain.com. Using Exchange 2000, SP3 (+post fixes), on a W2k Sp4 box. I have the SMTP server settings to only allow to 10.x subnets to relay. This works if someone tries to relay to outside of us... but someone can send from any address to our domain, and I can't find any white papers that address this. I've checked 'Perform Reverse DNS on incoming messages", but this doesn't solve the problem. There has to be a way to specify that y...

Exchange in recovery mode
When my users long in through outlook to Exchange 2k3 we all get a box telling us Exchange is in recovery mode. I can click the connect button and everything works fine but how do i make this go away? Can anyone help? Thanks <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in news:92cc01c4789c$2d924b10 $a601280a@phx.gbl: > When my users long in through outlook to Exchange 2k3 we > all get a box telling us Exchange is in recovery mode. I > can click the connect button and everything works fine but > how do i make this go away? Can anyone help? > > Thanks The me...

upgrading to Exchange 2003 from 2002
We are upgrading to Exchange 2003 from 2002. Since we do not know if ADPrep was ran before the original setup of Exchange 2000 into the forest, should we run the inetorgpersonfix, and will the script take things off line. On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:04:44 -0400, "ScottS" <Scott.Salvatore@loweHealthcare.com> wrote: >We are upgrading to Exchange 2003 from 2002. Since we do not know if ADPrep >was ran before the original setup of Exchange 2000 into the forest, should >we run the inetorgpersonfix, and will the script take things off line. > It won't take things down. ...