- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted May 16, 2008
Some of us remember using HP Open Mail in the early 90s. Very stable, and with the ability to scale up to many users. The book describes its strange journey, and how it morphed into something called Scalix. Perhaps you might agree with Feilner's characterisation of HP's marketing of Open Mail as being defined by a too-close relationship with Microsoft, and a reluctance by HP to position Open Mail as a direct competitor to Exchange. His account of Open Mail's travails is backed up by excerpts from contemporaneous accounts in the technical press. Anyway, here we are today with Scalix. How does it look? The book describes a sophisticated GUI that lets the sysadmin easily handling managing a large email server. One immediate advantage is that the GUI lets you avoid direct editing of what Feilner calls the 'horrible' sendmail syntax of the sendmail configuration files. Good. I was once a sysadmin of unix boxes, and sendmail had the well deserved reputation of being the most complicated package to manage. Its syntax is indeed dreadful, and if you know nothing of this because you use Scalix, you are fortunate. Another very useful advantage of Scalix over a default sendmail is a more efficient holding of messages. Sendmail sends copies of a message to each recipient's mail file. As far as I know, there is no way with sendmail to avoid this. But Scalix uses a totally different storage approach, that avoids this replication. It lets Scalix scale up to handle more users and messages than sendmail.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.