Re: [NTISP] Imail vs post-office

Darryl Harvey ( darryl@myemail.com.au )
Sat, 13 Mar 1999 13:07:09 +1100 (EST)

On Fri, 12 Mar 1999, Geoffrey L. Scully wrote:

> We are looking at two different third party packages. Imail was too slow and
> cumbersome when we used it. Post.Office has been rock solid.

Speaking of "Rock Solid", have you checked out MailSite, but Rockliffe.

IMHO the fastest, most stable Email server around.

http://www.rockliffe.com/ I am just a very satisfied user.

Rgds,
darryl

> rkm wrote:
>
> > We just moved one of our post-office mail servers to a new box...
> >
> > Took all of an hour with over 500 accounts and dozens of supported domains.
> >
> > Maybe you had the old version of post-office that kept the users in the
> > registry... but we had no trouble whatsoever... We run Post.Office v3.5.2
> > release 221
> > Also disagree with you about "set up" difficulty. It's a breeze.
> > The lack of a web interface is an issue, we are currently looking into third
> > party packages to accomplish this.
> >
> > > As a follow-up to my previous message, we dumped postoffice a
> > > year ago do to their lack of features, especially a good web
> > > interface for the users to access their mail. The configuration
> > > was easy with Post Office, but took much longer to set up than
> > > IMail. Backing up the registry, moving the accounts to a new box
> > > is very easy with IMail and a nightmare with PostOffice. Hope this helps.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Name: winmail.dat
> > winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef
> > Encoding: base64
>
>
> For more information about this list, including removal,
> see this url: http://www.iea-software.com/maillist.html
>

For more information about this list, including removal,
see this url: http://www.iea-software.com/maillist.html