Re: Microsoft Exchange Server

[Sébastien Kirche]

At 03:08 on Feb 5 2006, Adam Sjøgren said :

> On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 17:28:50 -0600, Andrew wrote:
> 
> > I use nnimap with our Exchange system, and it's tolerable.
> > It's certainly better than using Outlook.  And while
> > MS-IMAP isn't ideal, it seems to be sufficient for normal
> > splitting, reading, and expiry.  I throw in the agent and
> > read offline for speed.
> 
> > I wouldn't interpret Sébastien's comments as ``Using
> > Exchange with IMAP will cause you more trouble than it's
> > worth.''  If you can get the admin to turn it on, I say go
> > for it.

Indeed. At least it is bare functional, even if that brain dead piece of
MS code cannot translate correctly every enriched mail.

You will at least be able to read and post. I suppose that MS though that
the rest of the exchange features are not deserving to spent time to
adapt in IMAP or more probably that people who need them will just have
to use outlook ?

> Okay, I'm not sure yet how much HTML-email I will be getting (that was
> the part of Sébastiens email that discouraged me) - so I'll give it a
> shot. Perhaps they wont mind.

Now i am thinking about I am not sure that *every* html mail is broken as
I receive sometime some spam that looks "normal" (as usual html spam).

I think that most of my broken messages are local messages generated by
co-workers with outlook and locally stored in the Exchange server.
Probably in an internal proprietary MS format that is not well
translated by the IMAP module (I remember of a problem with some
messages and application/ms-tnef mime attachments). 

> (Or I'll have to try making an IMAP<->OWA thing, although I would
> guess that would be too much work...)

>From the administrator point of view it should only be a checkbox to
activate on the server configuration.

-- 
Sébastien Kirche