Exchange 2003 vs others

[amereng]

We are wanting to stop using an ISP to host our e-mail and bring the process in house. I am somewhat grudgingly leaning towards Exchange 2003. I was wanting to get some opinions to see if you think exchange is best or if there are other good alternatives.
Here is what we are looking for

1. E-mail service that is dependable! (lack of dependability is why we are wanting to stop outsourcing.)

2. Extremely good spam blockers/virus filters/security

3. Fairly simple setup and administration (I may have to take an extended leave for an active duty tour so I need to be able to keep it simple for those that will hold down the fort while I am gone and to prevent excessive outsourced troubleshooting)

4. Company wide calendar/resource scheduling

5. Decent cost requirements, we do not want to spend money on a Cadillac when a Chevy works just fine.

5. Windows compatible

6. Outlook compatible

I put the last 2 requirement in just incase someone recommends another program to look into. I appreciate any insight you can give.

Jon

 

[wdoellefeld]

I'll throw a vote in for Exchange. I've heard and experienced most of the cons... cost, service packs break it, the fact it's from MS.

1. E-mail service that is dependable! (lack of dependability is why we are wanting to stop outsourcing.)

This one is subjective. If you set it up properly with the right sized server, of decent quality it will be dependable. The right RAID configurationa nd regular backups go far.

2. Extremely good spam blockers/virus filters/security

You get what you pay for here. The free ones (for exchange) work but they never have the key features most admins like. Mail Marshall is a good one. If you end up going the Linux route Spam Assassin works well too. For virus I have yet to see one for exchange that didn't have issues. Groupshield 6 is promising but the completely new interface takes getting used to.

3. Fairly simple setup and administration (I may have to take an extended leave for an active duty tour so I need to be able to keep it simple for those that will hold down the fort while I am gone and to prevent excessive outsourced troubleshooting)

Exchange 2003 fills the bill here. We migrated off a Linux box at one point and one of the (many) reasons of doing it was because configuration got painful. Good luck finding a local Linux contractor or consultant in a pinch.

4. Company wide calendar/resource scheduling

Nothing beats the Exchange and Outlook combination.

5. Decent cost requirements, we do not want to spend money on a Cadillac when a Chevy works just fine.

All depends on the size of the organization you will be servicing. I run 150 mailboxes that connect all day on a older dual P3 800Mhz machine with 2gig of RAM with one mailstore. My biggest issue right now is the growing demands of Virus scanning (and file blocking) on the server. We are slowly needing a newer faster machine to help keep up. One guy I know was forced to run his exchange server serving about 30 mailboxes on a Optiplex GX240 because of a idiot accounting manager and it performed extremely well.

FRCP

http://www.frcp.net

 

[Marcs41]

If you don't have too many clients, go for SBS 2003, that is cost effective!
As for virusscans, I leave the scans to the client, it just slows down the server and clients have to scan anyway.

Marc
_{If 'something' 'somewhere' gives 'some' error, expect random guesses or no replies at all. Please specify details.
Free Tip: The F1 Key does NOT destroy your PC!
How Do I Get Great Answers To my Tek-Tips Questions?} See faq222-2244

 

[ajeab]

I still recommend to use server or gateway scan. It's better to block them before it hit the user.

 

[dkediger]

An integrated AV product like the Trend CSM product or Sophos work really well. Both these include AV and Spam filtering and have a Server component and a Client component.

As far as leaving the scanning to the client - why bog down the clients when you can intercept most at the server level?

Regarding Exchange reliability and performance - that's really dependent largely on the hardware and the number of clients.

 

[amereng]

The way I take it Exchange does not have good built in spam blockers? You have to go out and get 3rd party ones?

An e-mail serving program I have used(not administered) in the past that I really liked was I-mail from IPswitch. It runs about 9 different spam filtering techniques you can use as you wish. I would go that route but it doesnt support calendaring.

On the dependability, you mentioned Raid. Is Raid nessisary for dependibility or for speed? I understand Raid can be a preventative measure, but I do not see us forking over the money for a raid system aswell.

Finally on the right sized server. Initally it will be setup to host 2 domains, and about 80 total e-mail boxes. Some of our older users on our old domain are listed in every spam list in the known galaxy. Good example we have our e-mail spam filtered before it gets to us and the general delivery e-mail still gets about 50-60 per day. E-mail will be the only thing that the server will be running at least for the time being. What would you recommend as a the requirements.

thx Jon

 

[wdoellefeld]

Exchange 2003 does have some spam blocking. Here is a good article explaining more in depth.

http://www.petri.co.il/block_spam_with_exchange_2003.htm

RAID in my opinion for dependability. My company is EXTREMELY email intensive and anything I can put in to maintain uptime is important. If you can survive some downtime without having the VPs and what not totally freak out at you then maybe you don't need it.

Right sizing the server is another subjective task that opinions vary on. If it was me.. 80 total users I think a dual Xeon, with around 2 gig of RAM and a 3 drive RAID 5 would fit the bill ok. You can pick something like this up from Dell for around $4000 or even less if you don't want extended warranty. If the price is too much drop the RAID and then lower the RAM, keep the dual proc if you can.



FRCP

http://www.frcp.net