Search
Browse by Topic
- Ferris Deliverables
- Topics
- Vendors and Products
- Attenex
- Autonomy/Zantaz
- AXS-One
- Blue Coat
- Borderware
- C2C
- CA/Ilumin
- CaseCentral
- Cetaphora
- Cisco/Ironport
- Clearswift
- Clearwell
- Code Green
- CommVault
- EMC
- Fortiva
- GFI
- Global Relay
- Google/Postini
- H&S
- HP/IAP
- IBM CommonStore
- IBM Notes/Domino
- IBM Quickplace
- Iron Mountain/Stratify
- Kazeon
- LiveOffice
- Marshal
- McAfee
- MessageLabs
- MessageOne
- Microsoft Exchange/Outlook
- Mimosa Systems
- Open Text/Hummingbird
- Oracle/Stellent
- Orchestria
- Other Products
- Permessa
- Proofpoint
- Quest
- Reconnex
- RPost
- Seagate/EVault/MetaLINCS
- Sherpa Software
- SonicWALL
- Symantec/Vault/Veritas/Vontu
- Tablus
- Titus Labs
- Trend Micro
- Vericept
- Waterford
- Websense/Port Authority/SurfControl
- ZL Technologies
Archives
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- February 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
- July 2002
- June 2002
- May 2002
- April 2002
- March 2002
- February 2002
- January 2002
- December 2001
- October 2001
- September 2001
- August 2001
- July 2001
- June 2001
- May 2001
- April 2001
- March 2001
- December 2000
- October 2000
- September 2000
- August 2000
- July 2000
- June 2000
- May 2000
- April 2000
- March 2000
- February 2000
- January 2000
- December 1999
- November 1999
- October 1999
- September 1999
- July 1999
- June 1999
- April 1999
- March 1999
- February 1999
- January 1999
December, 2005
Software Upgrade Revenue Motivates Microsoft’s Managed Service Offerings 
Comment on this (0 comments)Dec 23, 2005
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Software Upgrade Revenue Motivates Microsoft’s Managed Service Offerings
SNMP: An Important Part of Managing Large Messaging Systems 
Comment on this (0 comments)Dec 22, 2005
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
SNMP: An Important Part of Managing Large Messaging Systems
Microsoft recently announced Microsoft Solution for Hosted Messaging and Collaboration (HMC) Version 3.5. Key new features:
- Mobile, push messaging support.
- Easier deployment by service providers.
Many service providers would like to offer a hosted version of Exchange and Microsoft’s other collaboration tools. That bodes well for HMC.
What bothers us about HMC is this:
- Its core is Exchange Server, SharePoint, and Live Communications Server. It uses the standard off-the-shelf code.
- Service providers need special capabilities, such as the ability for end customers to provision their own users, high scalability (millions of users per logical server), and integration with the service provider’s billing and provisioning systems.
- In our experience, such facilities have to be considered, and built into, the architecture of a product. In the case of HMC, Microsoft is gradually trying to add such features onto products that weren’t designed for service providers.
It would be a good thing for SMEs if HMC were successful. And it may be true that no telco staff has ever been fired for buying Microsoft, at least for the last 10 years.
Nevertheless, those evaluating the software would do well to exercise caution. Microsoft’s last messaging offering for service providers went the way of all flesh, rather prematurely.
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Outsourcing Often Delays Software Upgrades
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Gmail Mobile: Disadvantages of Web Mobile Messaging
Waterford Email Archiving: Attractive, Second-Generation Product
Comment on this (0 comments)Dec 21, 2005Waterford Technologies is not a household name, not even in email households. It’ll get better known. It has an attractive email archiving product, MailMeter:
- Highly interactive, lots of drill-downs with fast responses
- Easy to use and intuitive
- Easy to install
A self-funded company, Waterford Technologies is growing organically, around 100% annually. The company’s main target is SMEs, up to 5,000 mailboxes.
Overall sense: Today’s email archiving leaders such as Symantec/KVS and EMC/Legato are first-generation products. MailMeter is a second generation product, built on a more modern, better architecture.
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Spam Quarantines Should Be Sorted by Score
CalDAV: Promising New Calendaring Interoperability Standards 
Comment on this (0 comments)Dec 20, 2005
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
CalDAV: Promising New Calendaring Interoperability Standards
Rockliffe: Nice Example of Inexpensive, Easy Push Mobile Messaging
Comment on this (0 comments)Dec 20, 2005Rockliffe sells Windows-based POP/IMAP email server software to businesses and service providers. Version 7 of its MailSite server is now available. Among other things, it provides interesting support for mobile devices.
It’s interesting because it’s simple to install and support, and overall has extremely low total cost of ownership. In a nutshell:
- Email notifications are pushed out by SMS message.
- The first few lines of each email are included.
- Users define their preferences--e.g., which emails should generate these SMS alerts--via a simple Web page.
This approach has its limits. You can’t view attachments, many messages are truncated, and there’s no ability to reply to an SMS message. To reply, you have to go to an email client, either mobile-, Web-, or PC-based. Nevertheless, it’s useful for a wide variety of short emails. For example, if a field engineer needs to call a client, it’s very quick and easy to send a short email, like "Call Fred at XYZ Inc., on 415 986 1414 at 10am". For more details, see the press release.
It’s a nice example of how to do push mobile email without a lot of fuss.
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
IMAP is the Open Standard for Mobile Email
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Lost Mobile Devices a Major Issue
We attended the November joint meeting of the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) and the OMA (Open Mobile Alliance) on mobile messaging. While these two groups have rather different cultures, both are working to build an open standards approach to mobile messaging. The IETF people primarily focus on getting things right technically. The OMA has strong business concerns and a desire for timely and stable specification.
Both groups have (different) architectures for mobile email. The IETF applies its standard client/server architecture, and then works to fine-tune protocols. The OMA introduces a “Mobile Email Enabler” (MEE) that sits between the mobile device and the email server, and then seeks to select protocols for use between the mobile device and MEE.
Aligning models is important for the open standards world. Here’s our take on what should be done:
- The OMA should recognize that in some situations the IETF model is valid, and that mobile devices can talk directly to email servers.
- The IETF should recognize the MEE as a useful approach and include it as an option in the architecture.
For more details, see Isode’s white paper.
CORRECTION: Exchange 12 Outlook Web Access--Main New Features
Comment on this (0 comments)Dec 19, 2005This is a revised version of the bulletin we published on December 19, 2005. We’ve reissued the bulletin to clarify our comments about large folders and correct our comments about showing resource availability.
We recently got a demo of the new version of Outlook Web Access (OWA) being prepared for the Exchange 12 release. We saw a build slightly newer than the version being shipped to a select handful of pre-beta testers in Microsoft’s "technical preview program."
The best new features are:
- Unified messaging is supported.
- When addressing a new message, a best guess is displayed as you type. This "typedown" functionality is nothing new to users of conventional clients, such as Outlook, but it is new to OWA12. It’s based on the most recently used addresses, rather than GAL lookup.
- When choosing a time for a meeting, the interface for suggesting times is now much clearer and easier, and echoes improvements made in Outlook 12.
- The meeting attendee picker has been enhanced to separate out resources, such as meeting rooms. It makes it easier to choose a room or other resource, based on its location and availability.
Further enhancements we’d like to see are:
- When looking at a folder containing more than 50 messages, the view is split into separate pages. It would be better if OWA showed a continuously scrollable, virtual viewport onto a large list. Outlook and other Ajax Web clients such as Scalix Web Access and Yahoo Mail can do this with good performance, by loading just enough of the list to display and then preloading the next items in the background.
- OWA12 displays inside an unmodified Internet Explorer window. In other words, it doesn’t disable IE’s toolbars, menus, address bar, etc. This can be confusing and distracting for newer or occasional OWA users. Again, other Ajax clients hide these elements, and even display their own menu bar. The behavior could be made configurable so that power users can reenable IE’s decoration, but it would be better if these elements were hidden by default.
If you are a subscriber to our Analyzer Information Service, please log in to view subscriber attachments.
Interesting New IM Browser Clients
Please Wait