Comments on Exchange2007.com : Exchange2010.com: Hosted versus In-House

FYI, I talk about similar issues here: http://w...

2008-04-29T06:22:00.000+01:00

FYI, I talk about similar issues here: http://www.cob-blog.com/cobweb/2008/04/in-house-out-ho.html

Dan

Yep, the proxyaddress on a contact object has been...

2008-04-10T11:23:00.000+01:00

Yep, the proxyaddress on a contact object has been a big issue for us in the past. Especially when someone does a 'reply all' outside of our Org.

Until Microsoft redesign the way they build OAL's there's not much we as hosters can do.

Oliver

Hi Matthew

We do actually prefix the proxya...

2008-03-20T10:58:00.000Z

Hi Matthew

We do actually prefix the proxyaddress (and mail) attribute of contacts with a unique ID (e.g. ID123.daniel@noakes.com), so it shows up in an OAL.

For users within the ExchangeOrg the email is delivered to the targetaddress (daniel@noakes.com) of the contact, which we do not modify.

One problem we experience is when reply to all is used from outside of the ExchangeOrg. The email client will use the information that was in the TO or CC field, which contains the modified proxyaddress. This will not exist on the server hosting the contacts mailbox, so it fails.

Daniel Noakes

Regarding duplicate contacts in the OAL - you shou...

2008-03-19T20:51:00.000Z

Regarding duplicate contacts in the OAL - you shouldn't remove the proxyaddress, but just change it to a bogus value. This allows the contact to show up in the OAL but mail still gets to the correct targetaddress.

>> Microsoft will not be offering a white la...

2008-03-13T18:14:00.000Z

>> Microsoft will not be offering a white label version of its online offering, Does this make white labeling more valuable?

- Yes, white-labelling is more valuable. Have a think about where the problems are with running a hosted platform - providing technical support 24/7, managing capacity, high-availability - and you can see why it's difficult to run your own platform. The fact that Microsoft aren't offering this to smaller providers/resellers makes whitelabel platform much more valuable.
In addition to this, proper whitelabel platforms that scale properly and really deliver uptime are actually pretty rare. There aren't many providers out there who have a PROVEN TRACKRECORD of running platforms with 30,000+ mailboxes. There are some serious challenges to over come when doing this.

thanks
Dan

Hi, yes our platform does support white-label part...

2008-03-13T12:28:00.000Z

Hi, yes our platform does support white-label partnering and we have a number of partners doing this today.
To whitelabel a platform you need to have generic naming, support for generic and partner branding as required, and appropriate support mechanisms in place. whitelabel is not just about the branding and support of the partner/reseller - it's critical to provide high-levels of service to the end user regardless of the partner in the middle. Many of our partners choose to "partner with ABC" rather than try and pretend that they are providing the platform. Much of their credibility come from the fact that they are running services from a large secure platform and they benefit from the scale of the provider.

"Does the hosting environment allow you to truly w...

2008-03-12T21:37:00.000Z

"Does the hosting environment allow you to truly white-label their services?" I know that groupSPARK (http://www.groupspark.com/) does offer this. Microsoft will not be offering a white label version of its online offering, Does this make white labeling more valuable?

Hi Oli

regarding "Does the hosting environm...

2008-03-12T13:53:00.000Z

Hi Oli

regarding "Does the hosting environment support catchall mailboxes?"

The reason why catch-all isn't a suitable solution for a business email service is because of the issue this presents to Anti-Spam services. You can't provide any decent levels of A/S against a catch-all mailbox.

By definition catch-all should collect all incoming email that's not addressed to a specific mailbox and this would collect a _LOT_ of spam!

thanks
Dan