Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft

MS Fights Gmail With 2-GB Exchange Mailboxes 353

Posted by kdawson
from the supersize-it dept.
prawnonthebarbie writes "Microsoft is battling the trend for frazzled office workers to give up on Outlook and auto-forward all their mail to Gmail: the company is promising 2-GB mailboxes in Exchange 2007 rather than the piffling 50-MB mailboxes most workplaces have now. Speaking at the launch of Vista, Office, and Exchange in Singapore, Microsoft Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis said Microsoft had built clustered replication into Exchange so corporate IT admins wouldn't be worrying about backing up big mailboxes to tape. However, its killer feature appears to be its plans to make those gigs of email available on Joe Officeworker's mobile phone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Fights Gmail With 2-GB Exchange Mailboxes

Comments Filter:
  • by Samir Gupta (623651) * on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:14PM (#17327096) Homepage
    Most, if not all of my employers have had policies forbidding the autoforward of corporate email to external accounts, for the obvious confidentiality/security reasons.
    • by rsilvergun (571051) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:28PM (#17327302)
      If you're a sales rep with decent leeway, you just give out a gmail address to your contacts instead of your corporate address. What IT don't know can't hurt you :)
    • by wandazulu (265281) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @03:14PM (#17327884)
      Absolutely. In law firms it's almost de rigeur to have a gig or more in your mailbox. Lawyers are required to keep everything they get for a case and that includes emails which may have attachments, multiple versions of the attachments, etc. Some firms can have SANs devoted entirely to their mail server, plus clustering, etc. While the rank-n-file get fixed-size mailboxes, attorneys are unlimited.

      What's funny is that the attorney database is segregated so it gets backup priority; if you just work at the help desk or are an assistant or some such, you may or may not lose your email in a bad crash (that presumably took out both boxes), but attorneys have a pretty high confidence they won't lose anything (which, given the nature of the business, is a good idea, really).
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dave562 (969951)
        And to take it one step further, a lot of firms, especially financial firms in the wake of SOX are archiving their emails. So although your average user might not have a 2GB mailbox on the Exchange server, odds are there there is a huge multi-multi-gigabyte SQL database on the back-end with a record of every email transaction that has taken place.
    • I know that in many public companies listed on American exchanges you are required to retain email in some cases forever. Yes, literally forever. SOX also requires you to document processes and a lot of that comes from email approval and such things. Most companies still block access to personal email accounts like GMail.

      They'll even go a step further by providing you with a Blackberry so you have literally no excuse for you to use an external account as you have your email with you at all times on your
    • Don't forget the document retention policies that delete all mail after a certain period of time, such as sixty days. How many people are racking up 2 gigs of email in sixty days? And of those who do, should they be?

      Document retention policies do not.
  • by RobGeek (536943) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:16PM (#17327116) Homepage
    We seem to have some users with 8GB and larger mailboxes today using Exchange 2003. The site is slashdotted. Any explanation as to why 2GB mailboxes would be something new and useful?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by smbarbour (893880)
      1) Completely useless to have 2GB Mailboxes... That's what PST files are for

      2) My wife, who has worked at the company for a year and a half, has already racked up at LEAST 8GB in ARCHIVED e-mail.

      Microsoft... It's too little, too late. (and Google Desktop keeps everything within a quick lookup)
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        PST files do not always work in areas where corporate compliance issues exist. Unfortunately, rogue PST files are the main reason why email archiving solutions require a discovery agent to be loaded on clients. If you are a publicly traded company and wind up in court, discovery can subpoena all relevant emails sent out in the past 7 years. Even if these emails are sitting off the exchange server and on a PST, the corporation is still responsible for presenting them.
        • by Total_Wimp (564548) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:44PM (#17327522)
          In general, this also precludes the clustering Microsoft is talking about that they claim will eliminate tape. In short, tape creates a daily trail. The user or admin could wipe out every single message on the Exchange database, and you'd still have historical data sitting safely at your off-site location.

          Tapes are also important for the "oops!" factor. Sure, Exchanges has ways of dealing with this, such as deleted item retention, but those run out after 30 days by default(adjustable), long before your CEO realizes he needs that email he deleted in order to defend the company in court.

          Clustered or synced data merely replicates the deletions or modifications. They also have a nasty tendency to replicate corruption (rare, but it does happen). Having real-time "backups" is great, but unless they're made to store data in an historical fashion, they can't replace tape.

          TW
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by misleb (129952)
        2) My wife, who has worked at the company for a year and a half, has already racked up at LEAST 8GB in ARCHIVED e-mail.


        It is a shame that people have to resort of abusing email to store/share files.

        -matthew
        • by Detritus (11846)
          It isn't abuse if it gets the job done.
        • It is a shame that people have to resort of abusing email to store/share files.

          well sourcesafe is next to useless at actually doing what it should be good at... holding the important files and emails for a project. It's crap and dangerously flaky when the database is larger than a few gig, not to mention the fact that your critical data gets locked into a proprietary format. I'd have us using CVS at my place of work if I had any say in the matter, but they're a stick in the mud microsoft only shop... if it

      • by Otter (3800)
        2) My wife, who has worked at the company for a year and a half, has already racked up at LEAST 8GB in ARCHIVED e-mail...Microsoft... It's too little, too late. (and Google Desktop keeps everything within a quick lookup)

        Beyond the issue of using email for file storage -- she keeps 8 gigs on GMail? How do I get 8 gigs from them?

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by SparkEE (954461)
        Yeah, PST files are great! I love when I get an email over the weekend using Outlook Web Access, and the email I need to use to respond is sitting on my desktop at work, not accessible through the Web Browser. It was even better when my hard drive failed and I couldn't get to any of that mail until IT had the time to restore those PST files from backups. </sarcasm>

        This is just another example of the flawed logic of Windows users. That the desktop machine is the right place to store useful data. I
        • Typically, Windows users do what the software tells them to. No logic is involved. I know I've never used a PST file and always kept my mail on the server.

          In reality, the world is different today than it was back when POPing your messages down to your local machine was the norm. It was a world where bandwidth and server-side storage space was much more precious. I know even back then, my university account had a fairly tiny quota. If I wanted to keep many emails past a few months, downloading them via
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dave562 (969951)
          If it's such a pain in the ass to recreate, how about you use some good old early 1990s tech and Ghost your drive? As for executing compiled apps on another machine.... hahahahaaaaa!!! Ya, that's a great idea.... once there is enough bandwidth.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dbIII (701233)
          To sum up:

          Outlook not so good.

          Alternatively recovering emails from an mbox format file can be done easily with any text editor. Having to spend an entire day to recovery a mailbox that had done nothing other than exceed 2GB in size (Outlook Express) with shareware since the MS tools could not do it was a waste of time. The current version of Exchange and the full version of Outlook is obviously better but the format is still a step backwards.

    • by Philosinfinity (726949) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:22PM (#17327196)

      The summary is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate. The article basically states that MS is trying to urge companies that keep smaller mailbox quotas to bump them up to 2GB at least. Supposedly, the feature set of Exchange 2007 is supposed to make doing this more attractive to corporate IT departments.

      Our department doesn't use quotas or any method of limiting mailbox sizes. In our site we have mailboxes upwards of 17GB. The main problem with this is that as of Exchange 2003, MS will not provide assistance resolving mailbox issues for mailboxes > 2GB.

      • by ednopantz (467288) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:23PM (#17327232)
        >The summary is misleading, if not wholly inaccurate.

        This is slashdot.
      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        by ipxodi (156633)
        Does Exchange 07 do away with the 16Gb limit for the mail store? Unless you have the "Enterprise" version of Exchange 2003, the total of all your mailboxes can't exceed 16GB. I'm at a company which is small enough to not want or need the added expense of Enterprise, but is large enough to be able to easily store 16Gb of mail total. I have about 50 users, each of whom I try to limit to 250-500 MB of mail. You do the math. I'm always after people to clean up the mailboxes. And don't say use archiving.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jafiwam (310805)
        It's even sort of dumber than that.

        Anybody running Exchange 2007 probably has new boxes to run it on, and has had a chance to review storage size needs and can therefore, most likely increase mailbox sizes.

        If you are on that version, and still have 50 MB size limits it's to prevent abuse by people who arguably shouldn't NEED that much to do their jobs. Take a hard look at the stuff the users are storing there and the big drive space volume comes from jokes (bitmap format, 4 megs each), PowerPoint presentat
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Muffhead (22590)
      Oddly I've got 4.3 GB, 4.1 GB, 3.9 GB, 3.9 GB, 3.2 GB, etc. News to me that Exchange can only now support 2 GB mailboxes. 2 GB archives however were rather painful.

      But seriously a 25 - 50 MB mailbox is no use to anyone. I do fairly agressive cleanup & I'm at 220 MB. It would be nice if my users didn't keep so much, but if they need it, oh well.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by operagost (62405)
      It's useless. IT departments impose draconian mailbox limits for the following reasons:

      - Software can't handle it (too cheap to upgrade)
      - Lack of server resources (too cheap to upgrade)
      - "Email is not a storage system" (dogma and hyperbole)

      Microsoft's DeAmicis's talk will convince no one to change anything. The latest MS Exchange (among most other corporate messaging systems) can easily handle 2 GB mailboxes.
      • by scotch (102596)
        Add to your list: - SOX compliance / legal issues
      • by maynard (3337)
        Hold on, these draconian policies make a lot of sense from a capitalization standpoint. On the server side, the big bottleneck is data bandwidth between your mail spool disks and server RAM. Even assuming you run fiber channel RAID and get +200MB/sec sustained throughput, that's still much too small when you're dealing with multiple users who each have very large mailboxes. Think about it: forty 500MB spool files being loaded at once and you have gridlock across that disk bus. Remember, every IMAP connectio
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by merreborn (853723)
        - "Email is not a storage system" (dogma and hyperbole)

        You want 40 people in your organization to view a 10 megabyte file. You can:
        A) sent it to them as an email attachment, resulting in over 400 megabytes of disk usage on the mail server
        B) use an appropriate network storage system, resulting in 10 megabytes of disk usage on the file server

        Where's the dogma and hyperbole? Email is a dreadful means for sharing files.
    • by cHiphead (17854)
      I'm guessing is psuedo-spam for Exchange 2007. All they could possibly be talking about is the DEFAULT EMAIL QUOTA of 50MB being bumped to 2GB. The article is obviously a fluff piece, I have numerous clients running Ex2003 all of which have users with mailboxes around 2GB. And the clustering bit supposedly relieving the tape backup nightmare is utter bullshit when the client is required by law to keep offsite backups of all email. Giving all of the users 2GB on a hundred user exch server = 200GB = an ex
  • by Realistic_Dragon (655151) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:16PM (#17327122) Homepage
    We have an ~100mb limit so that *users do not use mailboxes to store vast quantities of data*. If you have 2gb of data, it should be on a shared server!

    Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only - those could be kept forever as a useful archive. But 8 copies of different and non config controlled bid spec documents? That's only going to cost you money and lots and lots of pain.
    • But 8 copies of different and non config controlled bid spec documents?

      Oh yeah! Particularly if you're dealing with an outside company. There's no way for your system to control their documents without your user manually copying the new document into your system.

      And users will ALWAYS do what is easiest for them at that moment. No matter what it breaks.

      Disk space is cheap.

      What is needed is a way to setup annual archives and get the 8 year old data out of the current databases ... but still have them availabl

    • Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only - those could be kept forever as a useful archive.

      Our company moves all attachments older than about a month to an external archive. And we use Exchange Server and Outlook.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by mistralol (987952)
      Store the information locally in an offline pst file. I dont know anyone who has 2GB of "active" emails they are processing.
    • You know on the surface I agree with you. Big mailbox = people storing stuff forever.
      And your method is completely useless where I work, where no ones msg is text, they are either
      word docs, pdf docs or html links to the first 2.

      Also in the corpse world, when I get "Meeting tomorrow at 9am" msg, 24bytes, which is
      sent as a Word DOC (128kb), that word doc is chewing up space at orders of magnitudes
      faster than plaintext.

      And I get peoples weekly report word docs that are 1Mb. Wow, my MB can hold 40 msgs?

      Sample
    • "Personally I would like to see a system that kept attachments only for a week and then stripped messages to text only "

      remind me to recommend you to our competitors
      Did you see Last night's episode of Bones on Fox ?
      How do yo spell clueless geek Ans: "realistic dragon"
    • by bcrowell (177657)
      We have an ~100mb limit so that *users do not use mailboxes to store vast quantities of data*. If you have 2gb of data, it should be on a shared server!
      Aw, c'mon, there are many perfectly valid reasons for users to have 2 Gb in their mail folders. For instance, your company probably has a policy that workers shouldn't pornsurf on company time. So the typical user gets the memo about the new policy, and what's his obvious, reasonable reaction? "Yeah," he says to himself, "I really shouldn't be spending the
    • by slamb (119285) *

      We have an ~100mb limit so that *users do not use mailboxes to store vast quantities of data*. If you have 2gb of data, it should be on a shared server!

      I'ts not just attachments - my personal email account holds over 500 megabytes of mostly text. (To be precise, the vast majority of emails are pure text; don't have numbers handy, but I think the majority of storage is taken up by text. Large emails or ones with Office attachments are rejected.) It also holds another couple gigs of spam/viruses I keep arou

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      EMC, CommVault, CA, Quest, and many other vendors have email archiving solutions that do exactly this. Settings are customizable, and easily allow for a tiered storage approach that would fit the main idea you are looking at. However, 100MB limits on mailboxes are essentially impossible in many fields. Plus, can you imagine telling your company president, CEO, managing partner, or head of staff that they need to trim their mailbox because they are over 100MB? I know we tried to cap the mailboxes at 2GB
  • Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheCabal (215908) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:17PM (#17327130) Journal
    Learn to read, submitter. The "piffling 50-MB limit" is a corporate policy. Exchange has supported multigigabyte mailboxes for a long time. MS is trying to get companies to limit mailbox quotas to prevent users from bypassing corporate policy and forward mail to Gmail.
    • by LoudMusic (199347)

      Learn to read, submitter. The "piffling 50-MB limit" is a corporate policy. Exchange has supported multigigabyte mailboxes for a long time. MS is trying to get companies to limit mailbox quotas to prevent users from bypassing corporate policy and forward mail to Gmail.

      That's kind of what I was thinking. I administrate a Lotus Domino server and we'd been using 200MB for years. Recently I cranked everyone up to 2GB. There are only about 60 of us, but even so it's not outrageous to build a system that can maintain that. Mirror it internally in the server and then replicate it offsite somewhere. Also use a 'shared mail' database for any duplicate messages sent to multiple recipients. To take it another step you could configure the server to delete attachments that are more

  • I don't *think* so (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OhHellWithIt (756826) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:17PM (#17327136) Journal
    With that other post today about the U.S. government making the argument that they don't need a search warrant to read my mail on an ISP's server, I don't think I want my mail hanging around out there any longer than it takes to pull it down via POP. This is in addition to the worries one might have about proprietary information being accessible to potential competitors.
    • by mark99 (459508)
      Better think again.

      SOX requires your company to keep it around for something like 7 years, so deleting it out of your mailbox only denies *you* access to it.
  • 2GB? (Score:5, Funny)

    by nagora (177841) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:18PM (#17327142)
    Have MS's programmers still not worked out that file size is an UNSIGNED Int?
    • Have MS's programmers still not worked out that file size is an UNSIGNED Int?
      Evidently they have, since 8GB is outside the range of an unsigned int (typically a 32bit quantity) It's more likely to be an unsigned long long (64bit quantity) or for the .NET 2002 people, unsigned __int64.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by kosmosik (654958)
      They did! They just keep it secret before they patent it. Otherwise some Linux guys would steal MS innovation!
  • by silentounce (1004459) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:19PM (#17327160) Homepage
    It's not the mailbox size that is causing people to use Gmail. It's the features. Gmail is simple and useful. It takes a lot more training and digging through menus to accomplish similar tasks in Gmail. The search feature is universal and reliable. If I need to find all emails related to a specific project it will take about 5 seconds in Gmail. In Outlook it would take at least 10 times that. The use of filters, labels, etc is far superior to similar functions in Outlook. They need to look beyond storage space. I'd still use Gmail even if it supplied far less storage space. In my opinion, Outlook is overkill. I doubt that many of its features are used by more than 75% of users.
    • Agreed. GMail could significantly lower my quota and I'd still love it. I currently am using 73 MB of my 2 GB of storage on GMail. And I was a fairly early adopter...
    • by Randolpho (628485)
      I was about to post almost exactly the same thing when I stumbled on your post. So, mods, pay attention: mod parent +1, Insightful.

      I personally couldn't care less how much space I get on GMail; I love GMail for one very simple reason: conversations. There isn't a single mail program out there that has a feature that compares to it. Lumping all emails on a single topic together as in a single interactive page is the best way to retain context on an email thread. Instead of seventeen "re: Bob, have you seen t
      • by giorgiofr (887762)
        There isn't a single mail program out there that has a feature that compares to it.
        /me opens Opera, F4, Inbox, Show as -> Threaded.
        • by Randolpho (628485)
          Not nearly the same.

          With Opera, those seventeen (to continue with my previous, totally arbitrary number) emails in a threaded view still take up seventeen lines in my inbox. With GMail, they're collapsed together as a single conversation, a single line in my inbox. Yeah, that's much better.
  • finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Speare (84249) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:19PM (#17327166) Homepage Journal

    Finally, there won't be any more error messages when Joe CEO sends that funny PowerPoint with the Aflack duck stealing money out of the lady's purse, the photo of the lady's car precariously "parked" between the marina and a yacht, and a movie clip copy of the FedEx caveman commercial. Isn't progress wonderful?

  • Up yers MS (Score:2, Insightful)

    I forgot to check my hotmail account for a few months and you guys deleted all 10 MB of my emails. I lost touch with a bunch of people.
  • by Thansal (999464) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:23PM (#17327224)
    I use gmail because I like it as a webmail client, nothing else (I don't care howmuch space I have, as I will never fill it). How much mail could you possibly NEED to store in a company email account? If you/your employies need more then what you are giving them, then you sohuld have given it to them (or come up with a better soloution) a long time ago, not wait for MS to implement remote backup in Exchange.

    That and you should NOT have let them foward their email inthe firstplace (just disable the friken ability, it isn't that hard).
  • is it going to take me to fix a corrupt exchange database WHEN one of these goes corrupt?

    The length of time it takes already makes it a toss up between restoring last nights backup and having things offline while it repairs itself...

    And before anyone asks, yes I do have it split up.
  • by CormacJ (64984) <cormac.boris-natasha@org> on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:24PM (#17327234) Homepage Journal
    http://www.google.com/mobile/gmail/ [google.com] has been around for a while now. It supports most types of mobile devices.

    Why do I get a feeling that the Microsoft version will only support Windows CE devices?
  • Replicated and clustered mail stores for large mailboxes - something Lotus Notes has had for almost a decade. Maybe Ray Ozzie IS making a difference.
  • by otacon (445694)
    the point isn't the 2 gb mailboxes. it's the fact that you don't have to have a server staff to maintain your exchange server and backups, people use gmail because it's easy and accessible....oh yeah and it's free...
  • Microsoft Product Marketing Manager Martha DeAmicis said Microsoft had built clustered replication into Exchange so corporate IT admins wouldn't be worrying about backing up big mailboxes to tape

    So you either need a nice fast link to another site (fast enough to handle all the replication) or you need to accept that in the event of a disaster, you've lost your email system permanently.

    Assuming you have such a link, you have to hope that nobody ever gets disgruntled, or your nice shiny replica will merrily r
  • The Real Problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mistralol (987952) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:36PM (#17327444)
    The real problem exchange actually has is that fact its so awkward to backup or restore from backup.
    Mayby microsoft should solve some valid issues first in stead of ones thats the person who runs the exchange server call already solve.

    You should have a look at the methods required to resotre an single email box from a tape backup. You need at least 1 set of the same hardware todo it the "microsoft procedure way" all 72 steps of it and it takes around 2 days to complete.

    Really exchange is a joke. When things go wrong it spits out nothing useful and spits out errors all the time when its running correctly.

    All in all end users whine if their email quota is to small but others will whine because its slow . You get whine if you do and whine if you dont.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by joeytmann (664434)
      In exchange 2000 and previous verions, you are correct. It was a pain in the butt to restore an individual mailbox. But with proper planning and setup of policies you should NEVER have to restore an individual mailbox. Now I know what you are going to say, but what if a user deletes some message then emtpy's their deleted items folder. Well, use Recover Deleted items. You can set the retention in Exchange admin for as long as you want, most other exhcange admin I have talked to use somewhere between 30-45 d
  • by LibertineR (591918) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:37PM (#17327458)
    I know its going to come up, from those of you who cant figure out how to restore your Exchange mailboxes, and with the 2G thing it becomes even more important.

    First, keep your transaction logs on a separate disk array. If you dont, FORGET reliably restoring your mailboxes.

    Second, make sure you use the VSS (Windows Volume Shadow Copy Service) when backing up your mailboxes.

    The number one issue I see when called in to fix these messes, is Exchange Admins keeping the Transaction logs and the database on the same hardware, as though you could lose one without losing the other.

    Restoring Exchange is hard, but it CAN BE DONE, bitches!

  • by Detritus (11846) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @02:45PM (#17327528) Homepage
    Many people are stuck with user-hostile Exchange accounts due to fear of litigation. Companies impose rules like deleting all mail older than 30 days and not allowing the users to backup their email.
    • by slamb (119285) *

      Many people are stuck with user-hostile Exchange accounts due to fear of litigation. Companies impose rules like deleting all mail older than 30 days and not allowing the users to backup their email.

      I think the lawyers are just a convenient scapegoat. As I understand it, they got mad at corporations for saying "we don't have that on our server" when asked for something old but damaging but the user being able to produce it from a .pst file when it's helpful. So the lawyers said you'd better always produce

  • mail file size used to be limited to 64GB on Domino, the limit has since been lifted. I haven't seen a monster like that in the wild, however 2GB is nothing special. Exchange sites often have restrictive quotas, Domino does have quotas available as a feature, but not so many people use them. Disk space is about the cheapest commodity a company can purchase (ok, so backup time and tape may be more of an issue) so why should companies get their employees to spend their expensive time trying to save a few gig
  • I'm guessing there are very few or no patents covering this, explaining why competition is very fierce. Customers win big.
  • Unless this server to server replication includes some kind of iterative snapshotting you will still need to do backups. The main reason to do backups is not to recover servers or applications but to roll back eroneous changes. In the case of mail, most restores are of accidentally deleted mail. On Exchange this typically (barring a third party solution) also means the whole mailbox. So larger mailboxes mean longer restores. If this "replication does do snapshotting, and better yet allow for brick level res
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 21, 2006 @03:01PM (#17327708)
    Having worked on Exchange for nearly a decade, I can tell you that no one was thinking "Gee, lets compete with GMail by making database maintainence easier". That said, who knows how marketing spins things once it gets in their hands.

    The feature described is actually to solve the problems Admins have had with the time it takes to do full backups of large MDB's. As end users have demanded larger e-mailboxes, the size of the MDB's have grown. Since these are typically taken offline during off peak hours for full backups, this increase in size has forced either constraints on mailbox size or limited the number of mailboxes per MDB.

    So much for evil nevarious plans to take down GMail (other than the kooky ideas marketing comes up with). :P
  • the company is promising 2-GB mailboxes in Exchange 2007 rather than the piffling 50-MB mailboxes most workplaces have now.

    It can already do this. MS is suggesting that companies increase the limits put on users to avoid risky (and potentially illegal) mail dumping to a GMail account.

    Slashdot: Now with more FUD!

    Aside from this there is also the option of personal folders using Outlook. Much more secure than GMail or any other 3rd party mail servers.
  • I prefer using IMAP mailboxes/folders for all my mail; but I know a lot of people who do this. I think it's obvious MS doesn't "get it", though. It's got nothing to do with storage (even older versions of Exchange let you specify larger quotas, so it's just a matter of having enough bulk storage available). Many, if not most, people seem to prefer using Gmail's interface. And what's funny is some of these people prefer any web mail interface to using a separate mail program. We've got a lot of users that ro
  • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @03:41PM (#17328310)
    I'll worry about this after I've actually archived my first GB if e-mails actually worth saving. Until then it's just Mine Is Bigger Than Yours posturing.
  • by 7Prime (871679) on Thursday December 21, 2006 @04:56PM (#17329506) Homepage Journal
    Ya know what this reminds me of? Two eight-year-olds who don't like each other, and who automatically disagree with everything the other says, regardless of their own opinion. Remarkable how international coorporate politics resembles the mind of an 8-year-old with a bug up his ass.

"Falling in love makes smoking pot all day look like the ultimate in restraint." -- Dave Sim, author of Cerebrus.

Working...