×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is There a Linux Client Solution for Exchange 2007?

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the switch-to-postcards dept.

Communications 385

CrazedSanity writes "I have been working at my state job for about 7 months now, using the Exchange plugin for Evolution to check my email. Very recently the higher-ups decided to migrate to Exchange 2007, which effectively destroyed my ability to check my email through any method other than webmail (which means I have to constantly refresh/reload the webmail window). I'm sure somebody else has encountered the problem, but I'm wondering if anybody has come up with a working solution?" Note: CrazedSanity's looking for a client that will work with Exchange in a situation where replacing the Exchange install with an open-source equivalent isn't an option.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

385 comments

f1rst p0st! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123611)

f1rst p0st!

Quick and dirty (5, Insightful)

cixelsyd (239) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123645)

Virtualize a Windows box with Outlook.

Re:Quick and dirty (4, Interesting)

Etrias (1121031) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124827)

Not a great solution. Yeah you could do this, but then you have to get the VM up and running (VirtualBox is good for this), make sure you have some sort of Windows license, install Outlook (again, with a license that works), join the VM to the domain (if you want seamless access) and set up your profile. Hey, now that's done, every day when you boot up, you boot up your VM, log in (if you joined it to the domain), fire up Outlook and watch as your VM chews up a good chunk of your processing power running a VM to run one app.

There's not a silver bullet here unfortunately. A VM, while handy and possible, isn't an elegant solution and it sounds like he's been working off of Evolution, so we're pretty much looking at just getting mail running. Easiest way: ask the local techs to make sure IMAP is running and install Thunderbird. Like I said, not ideal, but that's when you get when Microsoft decides not to play nicely with others.

Re:Quick and dirty (3, Informative)

Piranhaa (672441) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125081)

That's an option.. But why waste resources for just 1 program. Running WINE (http://www.winehq.org) or Crossover would be a much nicer option. Last I checked, Office 2003 runs near perfectly and you don't need to spend the money or the resources on running an entire Windows OS on top of a Linux install.

Just my 0.0002 cents

Duh (5, Funny)

IceCreamGuy (904648) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123669)

Just telnet in and use SMTP commands.

Re:Duh (3, Informative)

rpmayhem (1244360) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123889)

Troll? I thought that was pretty funny. Have you ever tried to use SMTP commands directly through telnet? Craziness!

Re:Duh (4, Informative)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124051)

I'd imagine most folk that have administered a mail server have sent mail with telnet. It's not difficult and if your new server is doing something weird it can be very useful for diagnosis.

You just do something like:


telnet mail.example.com 25
EHLO me.example.com
MAIL FROM: <me@me.example.com>
RCPT TO: <you@mail.example.com>
DATA
Subject: Message sent with telnet

Here's my message body.
.

Re:Duh (3, Funny)

bonehead (6382) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124289)

Of course, things get a little trickier if you need to attach a binary file to the message.

Re:Duh (5, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124439)

# man uuencode
uuencode(1)
NAME
              uuencode, uudecode - encode a binary file, or decode its representation
SYNOPSIS
              uuencode [-m] [ file ] name

              uudecode [-o outfile] [ file ]...

DESCRIPTION
              Uuencode and uudecode are used to transmit binary files over transmission mediums that do not support other than
              simple ASCII data. ...

Re:Duh (1)

bonehead (6382) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124701)

Understood.

The tricky part is typing the results in over your telnet connection.

(Yes, I can think of several ways to avoid having to do that, but it makes my already poor attempt at a joke even less funny, so.....)

Re:Duh (4, Funny)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124429)

Informative?

A guy suggesting, seriously as far as I can work out, that you can replace Outlook with TELNET! is marked "informative?"

Re:Duh (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124621)

A guy suggesting, seriously as far as I can work out, that you can replace Outlook with TELNET! is marked "informative?"

Not at all. I replied to a post which said:

Have you ever tried to use SMTP commands directly through telnet? Craziness!

I merely pointed out that many mail server administrators will have done this frequently. It'd not crazy and not particularly difficult. Still, just because you can doesn't mean that's how you send your mail. Most of us use an MUA for day to day sending of email. I certainly never suggested anyone do otherwise.

Re:Duh (1)

RulerOf (975607) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124803)

I merely pointed out that many mail server administrators will have done this frequently.

I've done it several times, but I always look it up.

It was informative, though.

Re:Duh (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125161)

I think there should be a separate reading comprehension moderation score. Cause sometimes some people have great answers to questions that were never asked, and other times people have horrible responses to questions they didn't understand. Then each poster's reading comprehension score would let a casual reader filter visible responses by that, as well as rating the main moderation score accordingly.

Re:Duh (0, Offtopic)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124955)

Yeah, but the GP post is still right. The suggestion to replace Outlook with Telnet should probably be modded "Funny" rather than "Troll".

Re:Duh...TELNET?? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25125105)

IMHO, that's not an option. TELNET into Exchange Servers nowadays has been (mostly) blocked due to the inherent vulnerabilities, i.e.- taking over an e-mail server. Not only that, but what with IMAP, SMTP is about the last thing anyone wants in this 'make it pretty' world in the newer servers. I've gotten along with 'mail' and 'pine' for the longest time, but not everything is easy to someone who doesn't understand how to or has not learned the 'old' ways; or how an e-mail server works. Everything doesn't need to be GUI, but try to do anything without it (at least in the world of the average user).

Re:Duh (1)

gweihir (88907) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124059)

Troll? I thought that was pretty funny. Have you ever tried to use SMTP commands directly through telnet? Craziness!

Huh? What is so difficult about that?

Re:Duh (1)

sampowers (54424) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124991)

Huh? What is so difficult about that?

Nothing, if you have a good terminal. Cmd.exe on windows screws up backspaces and stuff, so if you want to test your smtp server, you need to be 100% accurate on each line.

Re:Duh (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124187)

Many times, especially when some idiot qmail fanboy sets up a mail server/relay without a functioning 'mail' command. The only problem I have is not having backspace.

Re:Duh (1)

SL Baur (19540) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124299)

Telnet is useful for debugging all kinds of different network protocols, including problems with MSExchange. Been there, done that.

Do you mean to tell me you have not written and debugged a sendmail.cf file?

Now, get off my lawn.

Re:Duh (5, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125287)

Do you mean to tell me you have not written and debugged a sendmail.cf file?

Anyone who has knows that Sendmail should be boycotted for not properly crediting Lovecraft in the design of sendmail.cf

Re:Duh (1)

Bandman (86149) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125187)

ugh, all these replies and not one mentioning that the guy wants to CHECK mail, not send it.

Anybody speak text-mode-Exchange?

Maybe this would show it who's boss

$ cat /dev/random | nc mail.mydomain.com 135

what am I missing here... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123695)

uhm, thunderbird ?

or one of the many other mail clients?

Re:what am I missing here... (1)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123797)

I don't think Thunderbird does Exchange 2007 yet. You know them zany Microsoft folks and their new protocols all the time! I wonder why they make such dramatic changes all the time, I really wonder, I just can't figure it out... hmmm...

Where's the outrage? (1)

nine-times (778537) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125159)

I hadn't heard until today that Exchange 2007 changed the protocol and broke Evolution. Nobody is complaining about that fact?

Is this not Slashdot? I expected roughly 50% of the responses to be, "See! This is why Microsoft is evil!" with the other 50% being, "What's the big deal? Just use IMAP!"

Re:what am I missing here... (2, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123801)

uhm, thunderbird ?

or one of the many other mail clients?

Ummm... Tbird doesn't speak Exchange's protocol.

Re:what am I missing here... (5, Informative)

timster (32400) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123981)

Well, Exchange does support IMAP, but usually Exchange admins disable it for the explicit purpose of preventing people from using clients other than Outlook.

Re:what am I missing here... (4, Informative)

mlts (1038732) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124199)

By default, Exchange 2007 has POP3 and IMAP services disabled out of the box. An administrator has to run services.msc and change their states from disabled to automatic, and start them. SMTP to the Internet also is disabled and needs to be explicitly enabled, and a command run to get anti-spam agents enabled and running. However, this is not out of malice, this is just a basic common sense "ship as few possibly hackable features running out of the box as possible, let the customer enable what he/she needs" philosophy.

Once the services are enabled, Exchange 2007 is as good a POP/IMAP server as anything out there. Thunderbird works well with it. Of course, both the POP and IMAP servers support SSL/TLS.

Maybe some Windows admins are trained to only allow Outlook to connect, but it takes almost no time at all to allow other E-mail clients such as Thunderbird or mail.app to work without any issues.

Re:what am I missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25125117)

Once the services are enabled, Exchange 2007 is as good a POP/IMAP server as anything out there.

Not from what I've seen. Try moving >2K messages via IMAP from an Exchange server to local disk and let me know how it takes. Then try the same thing from a Real IMAP Server.

While my experience might be with a pathological case, the Cyrus IMAP server I deal with is roughly 20-30 times faster than the Exchange server when dealing with any serious volume in a given IMAP folder.

Re:what am I missing here... (2, Funny)

slashgrim (1247284) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124229)

Well, Exchange does support IMAP, but usually Exchange admins disable it for the explicit purpose of preventing people from using clients other than Outlook.

I thought most countries had laws against cruel and unusual punishments!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruel_and_unusual_punishment

I guess those usually only apply to the government.

Re:what am I missing here... (1)

Nutria (679911) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124267)

Well, Exchange does support IMAP

Exchange is more than a mail server.

Re:what am I missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124599)

A lot of people do seem to forget that Exchange is indeed more than just a mail server. Public folders, shared calendaring with immediate-access availability checking, and journalling are just some of its other features that people who use Exchange actually do tend to use.

Now there are those that use it only for email -- shame on them.

Re:what am I missing here... (1)

ivanmarsh (634711) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124907)

I was going to say... you can't tell me that Exchange doesn't support POP or IMAP.

Though I would have been terribly surprised.

Re:what am I missing here... (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125291)

IMAP is fundamentally broken, so most Exchange admins don't want to encourage users to use it. Use POP, you admin will be more likely to enable that.

Re:what am I missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123871)

As long as they leave the POP interface enabled. I have the same issue but they have disabled POP access, so I would need a client that can interact with the Exchange MAPI or else work like the old evolution plugin that hit Exchange through the webmail interface.

Re:what am I missing here... (2, Informative)

cixelsyd (239) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123891)

You could also configure the IMAP service on the Exchange server and use a regular mail client like Thunderbird. You still get the semi-realtime mail updates of Exchange, though you won't get things like Calendar sync or server-based contacts.

Re:what am I missing here... (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124025)

Only if the helpful (note that he said state job) IT staff have loosened the security policies and enabled POP3 or IMAP. Then he has the problem that the groupware (calendars/tasks/public folders/apps using custom forms) doesn't work.

Re:what am I missing here... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124027)

You are missing the whole point of exchange. All the integration with the other essential features. Calendaring ect.

Re:what am I missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124085)

That's assuming that IMAP or even POP support is enabled on the Exchange 2007 server in question.

Re:what am I missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124093)

your missing the fact that thundbird only supports POP3 and not the full exchange protocol, which includes much more functionality than just mail

Re:what am I missing here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124155)

I think perhaps he's run into the same problem I have in the past in that his calendar and (to a lesser extent) contacts aren't Exchange-based as most Exchange admins will allow IMAP.

I really wish the Exchange plugin for 2007 would come along for Evolution... It was the best solution on Exchange 2003 and I miss it dearly.

Use the webmail that it provides? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123773)

That's how I deal with my mail where I work. If you aren't the IT guy that manages your exchange server and they don't have webmail turned on, Thunderbird should talk to exchange.

Re:Use the webmail that it provides? (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124061)

They're more likely to enable OWA (webmail) than POP3 or IMAP. Last time I checked those two were off by default. But, if IMAP is on, Thunderbird works fine for email. Squirrelmail works too. (Don't ask, it was a weird request.)

Meh. (1)

nawcom (941663) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123789)

According to the Crossovers Compatibilities list, Outlook 2007 is rated meh (my interpretation of bronze) with a few silver ratings by other people. http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=2841 [codeweavers.com]
This is of course for Crossover's version of wine with their proprietary fixes, for good ol gnu wine has Outlook 2007 listed as garbage [winehq.org].

Personally, I would nag on the IT people to free themselves from depending on an untrustworthy company.

Re:Meh. (2)

Aphoxema (1088507) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123857)

The worst part is you end up paying for Office 2007 when you're only going to use one application that doesn't do a very good job of what it's meant for anyways.

Re:Meh. (1)

deniable (76198) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124443)

You pay for client access licenses for Exchange and that includes Outlook. You buy Office for the other stuff. And Outlook does a pretty good job, but its job isn't solely as a mail client.

Re:Meh. (1)

Bwian_of_Nazareth (827437) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124139)

Little bit of playing the Devil's advocate here... but can you name me another enterprise solution that lets you send and receive emails, delegate access to mailboxes (R, R/W), share calendars and delegate access to calendars with reasonable granularity?

Yes. Zimbra. (2, Informative)

Zombie Ryushu (803103) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124277)

Yes, Zimbra, and many other Groupware solutions meant just for that purpose.

Re:Yes. Zimbra. (2, Interesting)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124687)

Zimbra looks nice right up until it comes time to pay for it.
Zimbra mobile and blackberry support are only available for the pay versions.
Outlook/Mapi sync and ISync are only available in the professional version.
I don't mind paying and frankly the price is very good but I really don't like the idea of "Renting" software. You must pay by the seat and by the year for standard and Professional version. What A PAIN.
Every time you hire somebody are you going to to have to go through a bunch of stuff to add a seat?

The price to be honest is great but I wonder about the hassle of adding a seat here and a seat there.
I guess I am spoiled by FOSS when it comes to things like servers. What a pain for a small to medium sized company.

Re:Meh. (2, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124193)

You can use Outlook 2003 with Exchange 2007 if the Exchange admin hasn't disabled access for older clients. I think Outlook 2003 works better with Crossover than Outlook 2007.

Re:Meh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25125053)

Mod up. I'd try using a well supported version of Outlook under Wine/Crossover first. You shouldn't need to use 2007.

I had the same problem (4, Informative)

skeldoy (831110) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123813)

but I realized that the webmail was actually better than virtualizing a box or trying in vain to hack the evolution-plugins. I ended up with the following solution:
I have a terminal-window that runs a bash-script that uses wget (or curl, don't really remember) to pull down the webmail-main-page and actually grep for the "boldness" of the new messages. When ever there is a bold line somewhere in the main view it makes a noise and flashes a tcl/tk-window saying that there are new stuff on the web-mail. I tab to the correct place in the firefox, refresh and there you go.
I know the solution is a little weird, but it works and it does what I need, so I really do not care to try out something else (except advocating OSS in my work place).

Re:I had the same problem (2, Informative)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124321)

The problem with OWA is that it is IE centric; FF and Konq have about 25% of the features available to OWA+IE. I use Tbird+imap for mail, and a Windows VM for configuring mail filters & settings via outlook. I've also trained my coworkers to send me emails about meetings because I don't use the calendar, and they don't complain because half of them are Mac fans.

Exchange does IMAP... and POP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123843)

So what's the big problem?

Re:Exchange does IMAP... and POP (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124109)

So what's the big problem?

You're assuming a couple of things:

1. That the admin staff have left IMAP enabled. This is by no means guaranteed.
2. That the person posing the question doesn't need anything more than basic email functionality and can live without the shared calendars.
3. That Exchange 2007 supports IMAP IDLE (I really don't know myself). Without it, you're stuck hitting "Check for new mail" on your client rather than "refresh" in the browser - not really much of an improvement.

Re:Exchange does IMAP... and POP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124637)

Most email clients let you specify whether to use IDLE, and even more are easily capable of being configured to automatically hit the "Check for new mail" button themselves.

evolution branch (4, Interesting)

rufus t firefly (35399) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123897)

Did you try the work they were doing here [gnome.org]? They did mention that it's supposed to work with Exchange 2007.

Re:evolution branch (5, Informative)

pinballer (655113) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124759)

I've spent considerable time trying to get this work and it is still nowhere near being mature enough to be usable.

Don't get me wrong, it's better than it was a few months ago. It will allow Evolution to make a connection and even download most of the folder information. For us, it has trouble deciphering email addresses in the headers, doesn't display some messages at all and, most annoyingly, continues to consume all available memory until it crashes.

Google Apps (-1, Offtopic)

courteaudotbiz (1191083) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123933)

The platform-independent Google Apps would greatly do the job! Unlimited user accounts, 7Gb of storage par EMail account, shared calendars, shared contacts and everything. It does almost everything Exchange does, including managing your own domain name's EMail services, plus it's completely FREE! I think you can even use an IMAP client to connect users to their accounts.

I've been using it for months in my company, and it works great!

IMAP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123979)

Exchange supports IMAP, you could use that plus any IMAP compatible email client (most of them are).

thunderous success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25123989)

Thunderbird works well with ms exchange.
I use it at work.

enable imap, use ldap. (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#25123991)

The only solution I've found is to enable Imap on the exchange server, and also enable SMTP for incoming mail. Then install Thunderbird.

You can also use the ldap features of Active Directory to do lookups of people's email addresses.
There's a calendaring plugin for thunderbird called lightning, but it doesn't seem to work with Exchange 2007 (I can't accept meeting invitations).

IMAP (1)

eobanb (823187) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124005)

I have a perfectly good solution that does not involve replacing Exchange, does involve replacing Evolution, and in fact would allow you to use virtually any client you wish. Exchange has IMAP support; it just has to be enabled. The only downside is that this doesn't sync contacts/calendars. Another possibility is using Outlook Web Access, although you wouldn't be able to use the Full interface in any Linux browser. Finally, what about Evolution-Brutus? It basically involves running some software on a Windows computer that proxies traffic between Evolution and Exchange. I've heard it works great.

Don't constantly refresh your webmail window (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124011)

Just do it 2 or 3 times a day, and let it be known that if there's anything that needs an immediate response, you have a phone on your desk.

Embrace the constraint, and use it to your advantage.

Re:Don't constantly refresh your webmail window (1)

eobanb (823187) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124565)

Unfortunately Outlook Web Access automatically refreshes.

What I did... (4, Interesting)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124013)

I just waited until the same higher-ups that forced the upgrade got so fed up with the poor performance of Exchange 2007 that they forced us to switch back.

Took about 3 weeks.

Re:What I did... (1)

rtechie (244489) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125223)

poor performance of Exchange 2007 /QUOTE

They underscoped. Hardware requirements for 2007 went up. Assuming his site didn't blow the migration, this won't happen. They probably wanted unified messaging or the improved web portal, both of which would naturally increase hardware requirements.

evolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124067)

evolution?

OWA? (1, Insightful)

NekoXP (67564) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124215)

What's wrong with Outlook Web Access? Use Firefox or even Prism/XULRunner or whatever and you have everything you need.

Use OWA (1)

chris_mahan (256577) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124533)

Use OWA.

If your boss cares about you and gets imap enabled, bonus for him. Otherwise, demerit for him.

If the company is willing to live with it, so should you.

Or leave.

I for one like the idea of not using email for ever single little thing, and I purposely turn off new email notifications.

OWA is not that bad, and if more people use it from non-ms platforms, MS might actually make it better.

Help me out...what am I missing? (1)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124885)

the higher-ups decided to migrate to Exchange 2007, which effectively destroyed my ability to check my email through any method other than webmail

So your organization migrated to Exchange 2007 and didn't provide any way to check it other than webmail? No client at all?

Or do they say "use Outlook and we'll support it, or else pick whatever you like but we won't support it"?

Or did they say "use Outlook", but you don't like Outlook and so you're going around their rules?

Just thought I'd ask.

OpenChange (5, Informative)

KatTran (122906) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124649)

OpenChange is an open source MAPI client that supports all versions of Exchange up to and including 2007, it is native MAPI and thus does everything you would expect an Exchange client to do, and it does it a reasonable speed.

http://www.openchange.org/ [openchange.org]

There is already an Evolution plug-in that will be mainlined into GNOME 2.24. However, you can currently get it for Fedora 10 and other platforms.

The current Evolution plug-in uses OWA web page scrapping and is really lame, and it most likely broke from web interface changes in 2007.

Re:OpenChange (1)

BeermanAtCampus (658994) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125135)

As I understand, also the KDE people are working on integrating it into the KDE4.2 PIM (correct me if I'm wrong). This OpenChange MAPI lib seems to be the most promising ones of Exchange client solutions alternatives (they claim they have the lib more or less finished). I'm looking forward to its functioning.

iPhone (or any other ActiveSync device) (1)

Em Ellel (523581) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124677)

If you are not happy with just OWA (although it does refresh itself and do popup notification etc) and want something that will notify you when you get new mail, get any ActiveSync device (iPhone, iPod Touch, any Windows Mobile, some Treo's, anyone know if Android supports it?).

It will be - portable and push-synced and if you DO want to see the email in all its glory, you can always pull up OWA for that specific message.

Other than that, you may also want to run an old windows XP desktop somethere and RDP to it. Easier on resources and installation than VMs.

-Em

VMplayer or VirtualBox image running just enough (1)

puddles (147314) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124717)

... running just enough software to get you through your Office requirements. We do that for engineers that would prefer native Linux/X for CAD layout and run XP in virtualbox for office-related work.

been there, given up on that... (1)

djmagee (165242) | more than 4 years ago | (#25124877)

I spend a day every 2 or 3 months trying to hack away at the evolution exchange plugin to get it to even work with my exchange 2003 install, which used to work for me (in ubuntu 6.10). I wouldn't have a problem using OWA, except when you use OWA in firefox, there doesn't seem to be any search functionality (talk about crippling a user interface), so it's useless other than checking for new mail.
I'm very happily running outlook 2007 in virtualbox, running in seamless mode. It gives you access to all the functionality of your exchange server, and in 2007, the (near instantaneous) search feature is even better than in evolution.
I am, however, looking forward to a maturing openchange, so we'll see what that brings.

Exchange 2007 web services API (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124917)

The Exchange 2007 web services API should make this job easier.

Introduction to Exchange Web Services in Exchange 2007
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb408417.aspx [microsoft.com]

New Programmability Features in Exchange Server 2007
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb332450.aspx [microsoft.com]

More discussions:
Exchange 2007
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=3891474 [ubuntuforums.org]

http://psankar.blogspot.com/2007/10/write-evolution-plugins-using-mono-c.html [blogspot.com]
"Exchange Server 2007 has a Exchange Web-Services Interface. IIUC Working with web-services should be a lot easier and featureful when done via Mono than plain C. So implementing support for Exchange 2007 can be done via this Mono plugins (which I am planning to takeup as my ITO task)"

From an Exchange Admin (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25124931)

Having admin'ed Exchange since 5.5, let me point out...

Yes, Exchange supports POP3 and IMAP (pull)... not by default, but not difficult to enable.

Yes, Exchange supports SMTP... but since mail is often sent by Exchange, it's often disabled for outbound access. IF you want to look at enabling relay, you can require authentication, or you can allow (private) subnets to relay.

I have to wonder what's so bad about OWA... and there is a tool called OWANotify which acts as a systray icon to identify when mail arrives (instead of leaving OWA open).

this isn't anything new... but...

Exchange offers: User collaboration... scheduling, public folders for sharing (though this is being phased out in favor of SharePoint), etc. These are not available except via OWA and Outlook (via MAPI)

Additionally, mail is stored on Exchange based on "Single Instance Storage", meaning that if I send an email to 20 other users in the exchange database (which there can be multiple of), only 1 copy will be stored. This presents a HUGE space savings as it relates to the database, and backup jobs (when performed correctly), as well as file server space (since most people just throw their PST's on the file server, which is being backed up anyway).

I *HATE* quotas since it forces people to use PST's which fight against the benefits that Exchange brings. There are other approaches (auto archive, cleaning the trash bin, etc) that can be as effective.

Assuming you don't care about anything EXCEPT email (which Exchange is *WAY* overkill for, price, feature, and resource-wise), I would recommend IMAP (since that keeps data on the server) over POP3. Though I use OWA myself :)

YMMV

The problem isn't mail. It's everything else. (2, Informative)

Shayde (189538) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125149)

What folks seem to be missing here is that the attraction to Exchange isn't that it's just a mail server. It's the calendaring, tightly coupled with the server that makes it work. Nothing else short of Google Apps has come close to working as well as Outlook + Exchange does.

Now, having said that, there's plenty of good work going on integrating other systems together (I personally run standard IMAP / SMTP for mail, and use Google Calendar for my calendaring). This works great, but is not 'exchange compatable'.

There are some other workarounds - An outlook 2007 client can be configured to publish it's calendar up into Google Calendar via some plugins - once you do that, Thunderbird + Lightning comes very very close to working the same as Outlook does, but it's not exactly an elegant solution.

We've hit hte same problem at one of my clients regarding Outlook 2007 - Evolution no longer works, and some of hte Linux folks are stuck.

The last bit is, as others have said, a vmware install of XP -just- running Outlook. It's not as horrible as you might think :)

5 Solutions (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#25125195)

Solutions in order of difficulty/time 1. If you have pull with the Exchange administrator, ask him to enable IMAP or POP3 2. Install IE using ies4linux or CrossOffice. It will allow you to use OWA in the normal mode which automatically refreshes. 3.Install Outlook 2007 with CrossOffice. They are now reporting that Office 2007 works with only a few problems under Linux. 4. Install Windows/Office under a VM. Modern VMs allow you to hide the desktop/start menu and interact with the application as if it were native(minus theming). 5. Wait for the 2007 support within Evolution

CrossOver Office + Outlook 2003 (1)

vinn (4370) | more than 4 years ago | (#25125319)

Use Outlook with CrossOver Office. CodeWeavers supports Outlook 2003 which should provide a MAPI implementation compatible with Exchange 2007.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...