The End of In House Email
-
On premise Exchange can still work out much cheaper I would guess, even factoring in the cost of 3rd party filtering
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble maybe the answer is coaching clients that web hosting doesn't imply email hosting and the two should never be tied together.
I think the reason I haven't done anything is I don't know who to EOL their existing web mail and how to transfer that to their new mail server since most are not using a desktop client.
-
@Carnival-Boy said:
On premise Exchange can still work out much cheaper I would guess, even factoring in the cost of 3rd party filtering
It can but not easily. If you want to have extensive storage, backup, failover and other features of Office 365, you can't. But if you are willing to skimp on those things you can, but you can only save so much. Maybe $1/user/mo. which is 25%, which is something certainly, but only so much. But it comes with a lot of risks - both in things like downtime but also in things like the risk of misguessing licensing needs or update cycles or the amount of admin time needed.
-
@thanksaj said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
With solutions like Office365 being so cheap, why would anyone want to host in-house email anymore?
Especially when you realize that Rackspace email is half that cost!
True. If you need strictly email, Rackspace is dirt cheap.
Zoho offers a free email hosting package. I use it with my domains
Free up to 10 users (25 mailboxes) with NO ADS
-
@technobabble said:
I think the reason I haven't done anything is I don't know who to EOL their existing web mail and how to transfer that to their new mail server since most are not using a desktop client.
Even if they don't use a client, you can still use IMAP for a transfer.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble said:
I think the reason I haven't done anything is I don't know who to EOL their existing web mail and how to transfer that to their new mail server since most are not using a desktop client.
Even if they don't use a client, you can still use IMAP for a transfer.
Thanks...will keep that in mind. My goal is move email off my web server by end of Q1
-
And you can do IMAP without a client, per se. We had a script that we through together in Ruby long ago that did migrations for us.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble maybe the answer is coaching clients that web hosting doesn't imply email hosting and the two should never be tied together.
@thanksaj said:
With solutions like Office365 being so cheap, why would anyone want to host in-house email anymore?
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
With solutions like Office365 being so cheap, why would anyone want to host in-house email anymore?
Especially when you realize that Rackspace email is half that cost!
And if you are a Non Profit, it' is very much an education thing - and O365 is completely free for basic E1 class accounts.
-
@g.jacobse said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@technobabble maybe the answer is coaching clients that web hosting doesn't imply email hosting and the two should never be tied together.
@thanksaj said:
With solutions like Office365 being so cheap, why would anyone want to host in-house email anymore?
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
With solutions like Office365 being so cheap, why would anyone want to host in-house email anymore?
Especially when you realize that Rackspace email is half that cost!
And if you are a Non Profit, it' is very much an education thing - and O365 is completely free for basic E1 class accounts.
And the E3 is only $5/user/month! Crazy cheap!
-
Our Host (email & site) is giving each email account 1GB of space. in the transition we jumped to 50GB per person,.. which doesn't include OneDrive and SharePoint.
-
I have a better question - without having read this thread -
WHEN IS THE END OF EMAIL in general? This protocol needs to die! The lack of accountability and security (yes I'm aware that you can do SMTP over SSL - not good enough).
-
@Dashrender said:
I have a better question - without having read this thread -
WHEN IS THE END OF EMAIL in general? This protocol needs to die! The lack of accountability and security (yes I'm aware that you can do SMTP over SSL - not good enough).
Honestly, it's pretty good. People need underlying ad hoc communications. Email is that. There isn't even a serious proposal for an alternative because, at the end of the day, email is like what we've always used. Mail, telephone, human speech... these things don't have that security and they work because of it.
-
The bigger problem is that people use email when they shouldn't. It's not that email is bad or should go away, it's that other tools need to exist for those occasions when secure communications need to happen.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@thanksaj said:
With solutions like Office365 being so cheap, why would anyone want to host in-house email anymore?
Especially when you realize that Rackspace email is half that cost!
If you're coming from a diehard Outlook client base, Rackspace with IMAP wasn't really an option until Outlook 2013, and from a collaboration perspective still might not be.
Does Rackspace offer shared calendars/contact lists/tasks/etc as part of their non Exchange email option? Heck adding ActiveSync costs $1-2 a month pushing you just that much closer to Office365 and the additional options you get there (unlimited storage, Sharepoint, Office online, etc).
-
@Dashrender said:
Does Rackspace offer shared calendars/contact lists/tasks/etc as part of their non Exchange email option?
Yes, they always did. Always meaning back to 2009 at least when I started using them.
-
If you need ActiveSync, Rackspace isn't for you. Rackspace is for web and IMAP users looking for enterprise email (Office 365 class) without the bells and whistles. Enterprise stability and reliability with excellent features but not fancy. It is fast and solid. Any business could run on it for $2. Most don't want to, but it is purely preference. The difference between Rackspace and basic Office 365 is almost exclusively in the branding and Outlook connectivity.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The bigger problem is that people use email when they shouldn't. It's not that email is bad or should go away, it's that other tools need to exist for those occasions when secure communications need to happen.
The problem is that those other solutions aren't free like email is free, and generally not as easy to use either.
Look at Zix - they charge $10/month/user for encrypted email, and they aren't really providing email service, they're just an add-on component in the middle. Sure they have a holding ground that allows non members to portal into a webpage to pickup a secure message, but really? that cost is outrageous!
-
@Dashrender said:
The problem is that those other solutions aren't free like email is free, and generally not as easy to use either.
It's free because it is ad hoc. Security is hard to make free and easy is almost never free. Email replaces the low cost and nearly free legacy technologies for a reason.
If you want to avoid it, you need something complex. Email works because it allows anyone to talk to anyone, anytime. No need to setup the communications before you start. To get around this people use things like Google and Facebook but there are problems with putting all of your communications into the hands of a third party, too.
People want it all, but that doesn't really work. Email is actually a great tool. Add digital signatures and GPG signing and you have secure, free email - just takes a little effort.
-
The signing doesn't solve my specific problem - I need/want full body encryption. And sure if I have an add-on Outlook can do this, but the recipient won't know what to do with it until I walk them through the process, etc, etc, etc...
I understand that Security is rarely if ever free - but $10/user/month - this is really just an example of the government mandate and the ability of these companies to hold us over a barrel at this cost.
-
@Dashrender said:
The signing doesn't solve my specific problem - I need/want full body encryption. And sure if I have an add-on Outlook can do this, but the recipient won't know what to do with it until I walk them through the process, etc, etc, etc...
You need both. Full encryption to secure the payload and signing to know who sent it. GPG covers this.
No matter what protocol you use, no matter what tool you use, you will always need to arrange its use with the other party. This is true for absolutely all secure communications and always has been. In order to secure the payload you need a means of doing that securing in a way that doesn't allow a third party watching the exchange play it back and reconstruct it. This requires a pre-arranged security mechanism.
That's really not something that you are going to get around. That's the issue with wanting to secure ad hoc communications - it's fundamentally a mismatch in concepts. Secure means you know who each party is and have arranged a means of identifying each other and securing the payload. Ad hoc means you haven't had time to do that.
