RE: [NTISP] Imail vs post-office

Ronnie D. Franklin ( )
Sat, 13 Mar 1999 03:01:02 -0600

Have you had any problems with customers not being able to retreive Email
.... some small in size, but mostly 2-5 meg attachments????

> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of Christian Schmit
> Sent: Saturday, March 13, 1999 2:31 AM
> To:
> Subject: RE: [NTISP] Imail vs post-office
> Hi,
> We also run postoffice 3.5.3. All in one Postoffice is very stable.
> We never had a problem. But what is really missing is IMAP4 support
> which was promised a long time ago according to the PO FAQ that used to
> be on their site. A web interface for customers would also be a good
> thing but as they develop so slowly, we moved to dmailweb from
> to offer our customers a webmail interface to their
> postoffice e-mail address. This works pretty well. So for me IMAP4
> is the only important feature missing. It is not serious that a company
> that claims to be the leader in Internet messaging does not support IMAP4
> in their baseline product. But as someone said they seem to focus on
> large ISP's.......
> Another thing is that Postoffice is VERY expensive, even the upgrades
> cost a hell lot of money!
> Christian
> At 04:07 AM 3/13/99 , you wrote:
> >Yep, your right, we on 3.1 I believe. I still use it on a backup server.
> >They seemed to loose their interest in anything other that large
> ISP's, that
> >as well as the non support of IMAP and a web interface is what
> prompted our
> >switch. When they stored everything in the registry it was kind
> of a pain
> >in the a** to move a box. I think the companies change in
> attitude was one
> >of the bigger factors. Ipswitch has it's problems, but I can converse
> >directly with the programmers to help resolve problems. The IMail
> >community contains allot of bitchers that paid next to nothing for the
> >product, but want the everything a much more expensive package would
> >include. I don't thing it's suited for very large ISP's, but
> with designed
> >for the small to medium size company. It fills a product niche
> and I feel
> >does it well. If money were no object, I probably look elsewhere, but as
> >far as bang for the buck, I don't think you can beat it.
> >
> >Kurt A. Butzin
> >President
> >
> >Molarnet Technologies, Inc.
> >1936 Bay Street
> >Saginaw, MI 48602
> >
> >(517)249-INET Fax (517)792-9158
> >
> >
> >Authorized iPSwitch WebVar, Allaire Alliance Member
> >Internet Services, Cold Fusion Hosting and Developement
> >ISP Discounts on Allaire and Ipswitch Products
> >Custom Systems, Hardware and Software
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From:
> []
> >Sent: Friday,
> March 12, 1999 8:53 PM
> >To:
> >Subject: RE: [NTISP] Imail vs post-office
> >
> >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.
> >
> >
> >
> For more information about this list, including removal,
> see this url:

For more information about this list, including removal,
see this url: