Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #186758 > unrolled thread

getting mail from Exchange/Outlook

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> - 2017-09-13 21:50 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-09-13 22:20 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook "Alexander V. Makartsev" <avbetev@gmail.com> - 2017-09-13 22:20 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Sarunas Burdulis <sarunas@math.dartmouth.edu> - 2017-09-13 22:40 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-13 22:50 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Erik Christiansen <dvalin@internode.on.net> - 2017-09-14 09:00 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-14 10:00 +0200
      Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-14 13:40 +0200
        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Darac Marjal <mailinglist@darac.org.uk> - 2017-09-14 14:00 +0200
          Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-14 14:20 +0200
            Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 17:00 +0200
              Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 17:30 +0200
                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 18:00 +0200
                  Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 18:20 +0200
                    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> - 2017-09-14 18:30 +0200
                      Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 18:40 +0200
                        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2017-09-15 05:10 +0200
                          Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2017-09-15 14:20 +0200
                            Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Dan Purgert <dan@djph.net> - 2017-09-16 16:40 +0200
                              Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Curt <curty@free.fr> - 2017-09-16 17:30 +0200
                                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Brad Rogers <brad@fineby.me.uk> - 2017-09-16 18:10 +0200
                  Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 18:40 +0200
                    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-15 03:30 +0200
                      OT: Crossing toll bridges (was Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook) rhkramer@gmail.com - 2017-09-15 14:50 +0200
                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 18:30 +0200
              Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2017-09-14 18:10 +0200
                Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 19:00 +0200
        Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2017-09-14 14:20 +0200
          Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from  Exchange/Outlook] Frank <zuiderduin@gmx.com> - 2017-09-14 16:50 +0200
            Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook] Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 17:00 +0200
              Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from  Exchange/Outlook] David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2017-09-14 17:30 +0200
                Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook] Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2017-09-14 18:40 +0200
        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Eduardo M KALINOWSKI <eduardo@kalinowski.com.br> - 2017-09-14 14:40 +0200
        Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-14 18:20 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook soyeomul@doraji.xyz (Byung-Hee HWANG (황병희, 黃炳熙)) - 2017-09-14 15:00 +0200
      Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Joe <joe@jretrading.com> - 2017-09-14 17:40 +0200
    Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook Richard Hector <richard@walnut.gen.nz> - 2017-09-15 04:30 +0200

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#186893

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On Sat, 16 Sep 2017 15:22:08 +0000 (UTC)
Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:

Hello Curt,

>The recourse to encryption is tempting to the serious-minded; however, I
>fear it just red-flags you for further and more exhaustive study.

If you routinely encrypt everything, there's nothing to red-flag any
particular email.

-- 
 Regards  _
         / )           "The blindingly obvious is
        / _)rad        never immediately apparent"
What will you do when the gas taps turn?
The Gasman Cometh - Crass

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186811

On Thursday 14 September 2017 11:55:34 Reco wrote:

> 	Hi.
>
> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > Begin rant:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping
> > > agencies, this exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times
> > > longer (If I do it once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail
> > > pulling and deleting it every 3 minutes.
> >
> > Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the
> > ISP's system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers
> > napping/ on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however
> > the agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar
> > strategy for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then
> > sprinting across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll
> > booths are located.
>
> While it's a legitimate point, the better one would be the following:
>
> How can you be sure that deleting mail at your ISP server actually
> deletes it?
>
> It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
> stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
> second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.
>
> Reco

Given todays $50/terrabyte of storage, it sure isn't the resource problem 
it was 10 years ago. So I'd expect its being done.  Scary ain't it.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186823

On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 12:36:12 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 14 September 2017 11:55:34 Reco wrote:
> 
> > 	Hi.
> >
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > > > Begin rant:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping
> > > > agencies, this exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times
> > > > longer (If I do it once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail
> > > > pulling and deleting it every 3 minutes.
> > >
> > > Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the
> > > ISP's system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers
> > > napping/ on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however
> > > the agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar
> > > strategy for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then
> > > sprinting across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll
> > > booths are located.
> >
> > While it's a legitimate point, the better one would be the following:
> >
> > How can you be sure that deleting mail at your ISP server actually
> > deletes it?
> >
> > It's very easy to setup mail delivery in such way that every e-mail is
> > stored in two different places, first one for the users' IMAP, and
> > second one is for … backup purposes, so to speak.
> >
> > Reco
> 
> Given todays $50/terrabyte of storage, it sure isn't the resource problem 
> it was 10 years ago. So I'd expect its being done.  Scary ain't it.

I didn't think this thread was about resources, but mechanism of
delivery and the issue of colocation of backups. Moving emails
from a remote server to home and immediately deleting them on the
server means that you now have a single point of failure. That's
why I asked whether it's simple to deliver to two unrelated places
at once before deleting the server's copy. I don't know how to do
this, nor think it's necessarily going to be simple.

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186845 — OT: Crossing toll bridges (was Re: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook)

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 09:23:32 PM David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 12:36:12 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 September 2017 11:55:34 Reco wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 10:19:45AM -0500, David Wright wrote:
> > > > Do you have a similar
> > > > strategy for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then
> > > > sprinting across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll
> > > > booths are located.

Well, the toll bridges near my area in Pennsylvania (USA) to New Jersey are 
interesting.  They are free to cross in the direction to New Jersey, but you 
have to pay to get out of New Jersey.

I sometimes wonder if TPTB realized that many people would be happy enough to 
leave New Jersey that they wouldn't mind paying.

(Aside (OT to an OT?): Also, there is one free bridge in the area, that is 
harder to get to, due both to the route and the traffic, but sometimes I use 
it.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186808

On Thursday 14 September 2017 11:19:45 David Wright wrote:

> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:51:43 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > Begin rant:
>
> [...]
>
> > Since they without doubt have a backdoor for the snooping agencies,
> > this exposes my mail to these people for 1000's of times longer (If
> > I do it once a week for instance) compared to fetchmail pulling and
> > deleting it every 3 minutes.
>
> Oh, I see. So if you can just get your emails in and out of the ISP's
> system within three minutes, this will catch the snoopers napping/
> on coffee break/gossiping round the water cooler/however the
> agency's monitors take their breaks. Do you have a similar strategy
> for crossing toll bridges? Like climbing the piers and then sprinting
> across, so avoiding the approaches where those pesky toll booths
> are located.
>
> Cheers,
> David.

Well, truth be known, they probably have their own copy squirreled away 
for later perusal 10 milliseconds after it hit a transport medium 
anyplace.  They don't like people using sigs like mine.

But the reduced time exposed on the isp's servers makes me feel better 
anyway. :)

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186803

Gene writes:
> I have, live, a 5 machine home network here, and IMO here is where
> imap belongs, so I could do my email from any of these machines by
> pulling from their server with fetchmail, and making it available to
> any of these machines by imaping it. But I have been told, repeatedly,
> that such an interfaceing between the maildir/mailfile filtered
> incoming pop3'd messages database that kmail maintains and a dovecot
> local server working from that email corpus is not possible.

Why do you want to involve kmail at that level?  Have fetchmail deliver
to dovecot, either directly or after filtering by mailagent, procmail,
or similar.  Dovecot should also be able to run spamassassin.  If it
can't, use exim4.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhasler@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186812

On Thursday 14 September 2017 12:02:31 John Hasler wrote:

> Gene writes:
> > I have, live, a 5 machine home network here, and IMO here is where
> > imap belongs, so I could do my email from any of these machines by
> > pulling from their server with fetchmail, and making it available to
> > any of these machines by imaping it. But I have been told,
> > repeatedly, that such an interfaceing between the maildir/mailfile
> > filtered incoming pop3'd messages database that kmail maintains and
> > a dovecot local server working from that email corpus is not
> > possible.
>
> Why do you want to involve kmail at that level?  Have fetchmail
> deliver to dovecot, either directly or after filtering by mailagent,
> procmail, or similar.  Dovecot should also be able to run
> spamassassin.  If it can't, use exim4.

I've no experience, even reading about it on these various lists.  How 
hard is it to setup?

I have been tempted to add a new drive, mounted at ~/mymail, and just 
copy the while ~/Mail tree to it just so I can do a full new jessie or 
maybe even stretch install w/o losing a several gigabyte email corpus.

exim4's man page is scary, its a swiss army knife.

I have to go get a tooth pulled, I'm outta here for the day.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186783 — Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 07:38:57AM -0400, rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

[...]

> I'm sort of moving OT, but want to ask: presumably you think IMAP is 
> preferable to POP3--what makes you say that (in general)?

POP3 is only useful if you plan to always get the whole mail batch
from the server and delete it there. IMAP gives you much more
flexibility (and besides it has this IDLE feature, where the client
can keep the connection open and get notified -- i.e. instant mail
delivery without polling).

I know, with pop3 you can theoretically leave your mail at the
server, but... the protocol makes it very difficult to see that
you don't download mails twice, or many times.

> It's been a long time since i chose to use pop3 instead of imap--in fact, 
> iirc, imap became an option later, and my decision was more whether to stick 
> with POP3 or switch to imap.

If it's working for you, don't touch it. For what it was conceived, POP3
is fine!

> I prefer pop3 because it (in most cases, unless set otherwise or dealing with 
> gmail) deletes the email from the email server, which is what I prefer.

You can do that with IMAP too.

> I presume imap gives you an option to delete mail from the server?

Yes. What's nifty is -- you can decide *when* to delete things (this
way, I try to keep mails around in the server for one extra round, to
allow for my client to have done a backup in the meantime).

> I recognize that leaving email on the server can make it easier to access your 
> email from multiple devices, but (1) I rarely have that need (maybe not in the 
> last 10 years), and (2), when I do, I can set pop3 to leave email on the 
> server (but, iirc, I typically set my "main" email device to delete it from 
> the server--iirc, if I didn't, I'd keep getting the same emails sent to me 
> over and over--but maybe I'm not remembering that correctly.

Heh. Welcome to POP3 and its mysterious UIDLs :-)

Cheers
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlm6csQACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZOtACfbOUVoxdjKqSgBz66ZBch0JOp
NW8Anj+TDPsi1pCbCkrUNHBY6ZCWxggN
=TMz1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186792 — Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook]

Op 14-09-17 om 14:15 schreef tomas@tuxteam.de:
> I know, with pop3 you can theoretically leave your mail at the
> server, but... the protocol makes it very difficult to see that
> you don't download mails twice, or many times.

Not in my experience. What makes you think it's difficult?

Regards,
Frank

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186794 — Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook]

On Thursday 14 September 2017 10:40:48 Frank wrote:

> Op 14-09-17 om 14:15 schreef tomas@tuxteam.de:
> > I know, with pop3 you can theoretically leave your mail at the
> > server, but... the protocol makes it very difficult to see that
> > you don't download mails twice, or many times.
>
> Not in my experience. What makes you think it's difficult?

I don't either, fetchmail has zero problems ignoring messages previously 
seen and pulled, been doing it for years. The options in 
your .fetchmailrc are 
'fetchall' and 
'no keep'

>
> Regards,
> Frank


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186797 — Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook]

On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:59:01 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Thursday 14 September 2017 10:40:48 Frank wrote:
> 
> > Op 14-09-17 om 14:15 schreef tomas@tuxteam.de:
> > > I know, with pop3 you can theoretically leave your mail at the
                                              ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
> > > server, but... the protocol makes it very difficult to see that
> > > you don't download mails twice, or many times.
> >
> > Not in my experience. What makes you think it's difficult?
> 
> I don't either, fetchmail has zero problems ignoring messages previously 
> seen and pulled, been doing it for years. The options in 
> your .fetchmailrc are 
> 'fetchall' and 
> 'no keep'

How does 'no keep' match up with
> > > "leave your mail at the server"?

Cheers,
David.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186809 — Re: Why IMAP instead of POP3 [was: getting mail from Exchange/Outlook]

On Thursday 14 September 2017 11:23:10 David Wright wrote:

> On Thu 14 Sep 2017 at 10:59:01 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 September 2017 10:40:48 Frank wrote:
> > > Op 14-09-17 om 14:15 schreef tomas@tuxteam.de:
> > > > I know, with pop3 you can theoretically leave your mail at the
>
>                                               ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑
>
> > > > server, but... the protocol makes it very difficult to see that
> > > > you don't download mails twice, or many times.
> > >
> > > Not in my experience. What makes you think it's difficult?
> >
> > I don't either, fetchmail has zero problems ignoring messages
> > previously seen and pulled, been doing it for years. The options in
> > your .fetchmailrc are
> > 'fetchall' and
> > 'no keep'
>
> How does 'no keep' match up with
>
> > > > "leave your mail at the server"?

In my instant case, its irrevelent because they have fixed dovecot to 
ignore the "dele' that the no keep tells fetchmail to send.
>
> Cheers,
> David.


Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186785

On qui, 14 set 2017, rhkramer wrote:
> I'm sort of moving OT, but want to ask: presumably you think IMAP is
> preferable to POP3--what makes you say that (in general)?

If you read your mail in more than one device, I'd say IMAP is a must.  
Without it it's really hard to keep track of what's been read and what  
not. You could set up your main computer to download and delete mails,  
and secondary devices to not delete, so that when you're back at the  
main computer they'll be downloaded. But they would appear as unread  
there, as there's no way of storing state with POP3.

Also, I do my mail filtering (basically moving mails from each of  
several mailing lists I'm subscribed to to individual folders)  
server-side, and any IMAP client can access all my folders and the  
mails in each one.

I guess if someone does not archive mails (ie, read them and delete  
them, possibly saving only a few important ones elsewhere), then POP3  
might be viable.
-- 
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI
eduardo@kalinowski.com.br

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186804

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 07:38:57 -0400
rhkramer@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, September 14, 2017 03:56:38 AM tomas@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 03:32:33PM -0400, Steve Kleene wrote:  
> > > My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail
> > > server.  I have no choice in the matter.
> > > 
> > > My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have
> > > an Outlook Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as
> > > far as I can tell you cannot save a file to the local disk with
> > > OWA.  That makes OWA pretty useless.  The documentation, if it
> > > can be believed, says that I can access Outlook with POP3 and
> > > IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.  
> > 
> > As others have said, IMAP is the best path (if the Exchannge server
> > is set up for it).  
> 
> I'm sort of moving OT, but want to ask: presumably you think IMAP is 
> preferable to POP3--what makes you say that (in general)?
> 
> It's been a long time since i chose to use pop3 instead of imap--in
> fact, iirc, imap became an option later, and my decision was more
> whether to stick with pop3 or switch to imap.
> 
> I prefer pop3 because it (in most cases, unless set otherwise or
> dealing with gmail) deletes the email from the email server, which is
> what I prefer.
> 
> I presume imap gives you an option to delete mail from the server?

Yes, there's quite an extensive IMAP protocol, allowing various
processing, including multiple directories on the server. It keeps
flags for 'seen', 'read' and 'deleted' (removing an email completely is
'purging') and can synchronise one or all directories with a client's
cache. It can send as well as receive email, though SMTP is normally
still used.
> 
> I recognize that leaving email on the server can make it easier to
> access your email from multiple devices, but (1) I rarely have that
> need (maybe not in the last 10 years), and (2), when I do, I can set
> pop3 to leave email on the server (but, iirc, I typically set my
> "main" email device to delete it from the server--iirc, if I didn't,
> I'd keep getting the same emails sent to me over and over--but maybe
> I'm not remembering that correctly.
> 

That's a matter for the client/downloader rather than the server. POP3
is a simple 'empty the mailbox' protocol, and doesn't bother keeping
records of message IDs, or indeed anything else. The POP3 downloader in
Small Business Server 2003 would download 'kept' mail multiple times,
the downloader in SBS2008 did not. It's up to the downloader to check
waiting message IDs against already stored message IDs, to decide
whether to download the whole message (again).

You've pretty much answered your own question: it's horses for courses,
IMAP is the only possibility if you work server-based, keeping all
email centrally with, at most, caches on the client machine(s). POP3 is
simplest if you use only the one email client, and that client can deal
with stored email in the way you need, with locally-defined directories
to organise things. You need to organise your own POP3 email backup,
generally a server providing IMAP will itself be routinely backed up,
and most people also keep local caches.

Microsoft's protocol for Exchange and Outlook is MAPI, generally
unpublished and of increasing complexity. It was originally the MS
'embrace and extend' strategy for displacing IMAP and taking ownership
of all server-based email, but that didn't quite happen, and Exchange
servers still offer access to the standard protocols. It still has extra
features such as calendars, linkage with customer databases and
'proper' external email client access through a webserver, in addition
to basic webmail.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186787

In Article <201709131932.v8DJWXMd016723@syrano.acb.uc.edu>,
 Steve Kleene <skdeb@syrano.acb.uc.edu> writes:

> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
>
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
>
> If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
> grateful to hear it.

Somewhat it is off topic, how about forwarding? If it is possible at the
server, then things are easy.

Sincerely, Byung-Hee.

-- 
^고맙습니다 _布德天下_ 감사합니다_^))//

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186798

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 21:58:17 +0900
soyeomul@doraji.xyz (Byung-Hee HWANG "(황병희, 黃"炳熙)) wrote:


> 
> Somewhat it is off topic, how about forwarding? If it is possible at
> the server, then things are easy.
> 
>
It is, or was on the versions of Exchange I've dealt with, last one
2007.

It is, however, a job for the server administrator, it isn't a user
option. Each recipient needs to be set up as an Exchange user.

-- 
Joe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#186824

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 14/09/17 07:32, Steve Kleene wrote:
> My employer is forcing me to shut down my long-time Linux mail server.  I
> have no choice in the matter.
> 
> My employer uses Microsoft Exchange/Outlook for mail.  They have an Outlook
> Web App (OWA) that I can access from Firefox, but as far as I can tell you
> cannot save a file to the local disk with OWA.  That makes OWA pretty
> useless.  The documentation, if it can be believed, says that I can access
> Outlook with POP3 and IMAP4 programs including Thunderbird.
> 
> If any of you have experience and/or advice with this problem, I'd be
> grateful to hear it.
> 

I don't remember the details, but at my former employer I switched from
Thunderbird (or icedove) to Evolution, which managed to talk to Exchange
(possibly Office 365?) in a more native manner.

Richard

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web