Remove From My Forums

E-mail!!!

Question
0

Sign in to vote

Hello,

I want to again throw out a suggestion for a "lite" version of Exchange to be available for this product. Exchange 2007 has some great features that could be included in a home e-mail server. The ability to have e-mail, faxes and voice mail all in one inbox and have web access to that would be incredible. I admit, it's a bit bleeding edge, but I think it would have a market. Include the POP3 connector, and drivers for voice modems (for the voice mail and fax) and you'd have a winner in my opinion.

Maybe make this part of Windows Home Server Premium, and include a "lite" version of ISA as well. I can see Windows Home Server, Windows Home Mail, and Windows Home Firewall, bundled as Windows Home Server Premium, or Advanced or something like that.

Thanks,

Dave H.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Answers

1

Sign in to vote

The folks over on the Home Server Blog discussed much of this issue last week.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:44 PM

Moderator

All replies

1

Sign in to vote

The folks over on the Home Server Blog discussed much of this issue last week.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:44 PM

Moderator
0

Sign in to vote

Brendan,

Yes, I participated in that discussion, but I wanted it documented on this forum as well, hoping that more discussion would be allowed on the topic.

Thanks,

Dave H.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:18 PM

David Hampson wrote:

I want to again throw out a suggestion for a "lite" version of Exchange to be available for this product. Exchange 2007 has some great features that could be included in a home e-mail server. The ability to have e-mail, faxes and voice mail all in one inbox and have web access to that would be incredible. I admit, it's a bit bleeding edge, but I think it would have a market. Include the POP3 connector, and drivers for voice modems (for the voice mail and fax) and you'd have a winner in my opinion.

I disagree that this should be part of it. At first, I thought it would be a great idea, but then... privacy, ease of administration, etc comes into play. You want HS to be a silent partner that needs little admining. The problem is the target audience - you (the forum readers/posters) and I are advanced. We know what we are doing and therefore we like to tune our system. The target audience of HS won't necessarily have this inclination or time. And alot of the situations where HS is used, there will also be a business laptop involved... I dont' want the emails to get mixed up or possibly integrated in the HS mail server. And as an IT professional, I would be very unhappy with employees that did this because of security.

Greg Evans

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:26 PM

Thanks for the suggestion, based on the data of our target market - it is a feature that very few people want and even fewer people want to manage.

If you really want a server that provides e-mail capabilities so that you can run your own on-premise e-mail server than by Windows Small Business Server.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:50 PM

T. Headrick wrote:

If you really want a server that provides e-mail capabilities so that you can run your own on-premise e-mail server than by Windows Small Business Server.

Is it possible to have additional "Ultimate" configuration for those who are more tech-savvy and also have SBS2003 running at home, to make SBS2003/Exchange 2003 co-exist with WHS?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:06 AM

Chiefie wrote:

T. Headrick wrote:

If you really want a server that provides e-mail capabilities so that you can run your own on-premise e-mail server than by Windows Small Business Server.

Is it possible to have additional "Ultimate" configuration for those who are more tech-savvy and also have SBS2003 running at home, to make SBS2003/Exchange 2003 co-exist with WHS?

I have SBS2003 running at home, and also have a WHS machine. They co-exist fine for my needs; what specifically did you have in mind?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:04 AM

I'm running SBS2K3 R2 now, but it's overkill. It could be made easy. The wizard to add POP3 accounts is already in OE/Windows Mail. Outlook or OE/Windows Mail could be used to access the mailboxes. My SBS box just works. I've NEVER had to "manage" Exchange in it.

I realize that I'm more advanced than the average user, but the average user doesn't have a server in their house now either. I do. I also realize that it's possible that nobody wants an e-mail server, but maybe that's because it wasn't "sold" to them correctly.

Oh well, I'll just stick with SBS, but that means that to go to the next version, I have to buy a new server (64 bit). Yippeee. Not.

Thanks,

Dave H.

Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:21 AM

I believe that discluding an email server is the right decision. It is far too large (read: complex and expensive) a component to packaged into WHS. It is also not needed by the already large target market for WHS. And as a seer of the future, it is probably not a feature that will have any greater legs down the road.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007 5:19 AM

T. Headrick wrote:

Thanks for the suggestion, based on the data of our target market - it is a feature that very few people want and even fewer people want to manage.

If you really want a server that provides e-mail capabilities so that you can run your own on-premise e-mail server than by Windows Small Business Server.

Not trying to be a jerk, but where did you do your market research?

Just based on the feedback I've seen in this forum, an e-mail server is definitely something that people want.

SBS is too costly and doesn't have some of the "neat-o" features that WHS has.

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:09 PM

The people on this forum are also the tech savvy power users. We are only a small subset of the target market for this product. While I agree that a lite version of Exchange would be a great extra feature to have for power users such as us there is no way that the average user such as my mother would be able to configure and maintain an email server. Ultimately, the average user is who this product is designed for and as such Microsoft has to make it as easy to use as possible.

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:34 PM

I think that the mail feature is WAY less important for most people than the Media center feature.

Friday, February 23, 2007 4:36 PM

E-mail is a very useful feature of a home server, but not in the way described in this thread.

I don't believe home users will want to run a lightweight SMTP server at home or have to administer an Exchange style setup.
Lets also remember that most consumer IP address blocks are included in killfiles and filters. Sending email directly from your own IP means there is a very good chance it will not arrive at the destination due to lots of well configured servers rejecting it. That would be a real headache for home users!

What *would* be useful IMO is an archive feature. I know WHS creates a backup of files such as PST files, and that outlook has an Autoarchive feature, but what I'm thinking of is a server feature that allows deleted items, junk mail, aswell as all real mail for all supported clients to be stored there forever. Even mails I deleted by accident or got mistakenly ended up in junk mail.

It is so annoying to have email scattered between outlook express, microsoft outlook and whatever client you use throughout your computing life. Connectors for each of those to dump received email into a large archive for your user I think would be very nice indeed.

WHS lets me remote into my desktop computer at home through the RDP proxy, but even at-a-glance from the Secure home server website I access from work/school/public library, an OWA style interface would be nice to see - for when the machine just says no to activex components.

Well, thats just my view on it. I've been writing tools to recover my emails from the last 7 years from various computers, various clients and various email addresses, and put them all into my current client-of-choice. That feature would have been super-useful for me if WHS had a POP3/IMAP downloading proxy all those years ago!

Michael Walsh | ConnectID: MikeW

Saturday, February 24, 2007 5:25 AM

Well it dont has to be a version of exchange, just a piece of software that gets e-mail from al the pop3 accounts we have in the family, and than it should be accessible trough the webinterface. For sending e-mail it just could forward e-mail to an providers smtp server...

Saturday, February 24, 2007 10:14 AM

Martien de Kleijn wrote:

I have to agree with this a really stripped down version where pop3 collection can be added to a users account and centralised. Then accessed through a web interface or windows mail/outlook express with simple or auto configuration.

Configutrtation of the user account need be no more difficult than setting up a pop3 client is now for windows mail/outlook express.

Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:40 PM

I too would like to way in on the side of requesting an option to add in a lite email server. With the target audience being multiple computer homes, I would think parents would like to have the ability to host their own childs email account. Of course assuming you can make it easy for "Peter" to maintain.

Sunday, February 25, 2007 5:57 PM

While on the surface this sounds like a great idea, I think it would send spam control back to the stone age.

A home Email server would be a (way to tempting) easy target for exploitation because Ma & Pa Kettle have no idea how to look for what when the box gets turned into an Open Relay and starts spewing junk mail all over the internet.

This thing is going to be marketed to the short bus of the internet crowd (Like AOL users...), so it needs to be kept nice and simple to prevent it from being taken away from them and used for bad things by clever people with ill intent. e.g. If you think your dog's name is a good password...

Sunday, February 25, 2007 9:51 PM

I don't think you need an open really or smtp server just a way of collecting mail from a number of accounts and centralising it. The send recieve could be handled like a normal pop 3 client and require the user to have an existing mail account, hotmail, yahoo etc to handle all of the back end server stuff. This would merely make email gathering sorting and monitoring easier for home users.

Sunday, February 25, 2007 11:38 PM

POP3 (Post Office Protocol v3 which runs on port 110) is for client applications to receive mail. SMTP (Simple Main Transport Protocol which runs on port 25) is for server to server transfers of out going mail.

Most (if not all) of the current generation of spam floor propagated viruses these days come with they're own SMTP engines, which allow them to run wide open and unchecked by anything vaguely resembling a professional admin. The (Typically clueless user) may notice eventually that they're puter is a bit slow and drag it to a shop for a good cleaning...but it takes time for that to get noticed. *sigh*

If you give the average household a stripped down & optimized appliance server (out of sight = out of mind to the Nth power) multiplied by the inane tendency to use blank or simple passwords...the boxes are going to get targeted and turned into relays by the thousands.

As an aside there are tons of hosting companies that will host Email domains that are properly regulated for $35 a year ... so it's a pointless gadget feature that will only beg to get the lid yanked off a can of worms that didn't need to exist in the first place!

Monday, February 26, 2007 4:36 AM

Martien de Kleijn wrote:

100% agree. :) I guess thats what most users want to have. There should be a folder in the personal user folder where the Clients Outlook is saving the PST file and there should be a web interface which should be able to read and write the pst file.

WHS without an e-mail feature would be much less exciting.

Lg,

Florian

Monday, February 26, 2007 8:14 AM

Martien's suggestion is exactly the solution I think would be very supporting the success of WHS.

Friday, March 2, 2007 8:56 AM

For those of us who want to, can we go out and buy Exchange with 5 client licences and install it on WHS?

Friday, March 2, 2007 4:01 PM

bdo21 wrote:

For those of us who want to, can we go out and buy Exchange with 5 client licences and install it on WHS?

You would probably be better served buying SBS instead of WHS. I don't know if Exchange will even install on WHS; maybe someone else can answer that question.

Friday, March 2, 2007 5:22 PM

Moderator

I see a great opportunity in this. Maybe not as PART of Windows Home Server, but maybe as a separate package that you can purchase. To prevent licensing issues and abuse by business, a "Home Server Option Package" should be limited to say 5 users, which is probably enough for the average family.

I see great applications for a "Home Server Option Package" or however you want to call it, think for instance of something like:

- A "lite" version of Exchange as mentioned so a family can share a calendar and e-mail internally, and keep a shared family e-mail contact book that everyone can use from either Outlook, Outlook Express, or Vista Mail. Many providers allow up to 5, or even 10 pop accounts these days so that everyone in the family can use e-mail. Or, alternatively, one can register their own domain and forward it to the Home Server.

- A "lite" version of webserver for an Intranet type family website and/or web based applications. Perhaps even for the outside world, for instance to log into your home computer and access the server console remotely, access the family calendar or contact list remotely, etc, etc. Microsoft could even consider to start a DNS service like DynDSN.org - maybe something like yournamehere.home.live.com or something along those lines for people to access their home server from the outside world.

- Parental Controls for Internet use, perhaps have the homeserver serve as a DHCP server instead of a home router, forcing the gateway to be the Home server, allowing families to block Internet access, access to instant messengers, and access to porn or other bad sites from the Home server.

- Internal Messaging between connected workstations using MSN or a different client. Also handy to send files to each other quickly without having to e-mail them or have to place them on a share. Sending a file and having it popup on your screen is just a handy convenience :)

- A Home version of Active Directory with the option of forcing policy's and forcing logon to the home domain. I realize that you can already have people log on to their workstations with a limited user account, but having one central location to distribute rights to your children is a great advantage.

One of the biggest problems with kids these days....And I don't have children, but know a good many people that ALWAYS ask me how they can make sure their children don't play games or use MSN/AIM when they are supposed to make homework, etc.... and a central location from which a parent can control rights, access, and the times that they can access the internet is almost a must with teenagers these days. Teenagers come home at 3Pm from school. Parents often don't come back till 6Pm from their work, allowing Teenagers to get access to stuff they really aren't supposed to have access to. A Home server could help with these issues.

I don't believe that Microsoft should be putting it ALL in a version of Home Server, but rather releasing it as an "Option Package" or in a "Premium Edition" of Home Server perhaps. I do however see great opportunities with this.

Friday, March 2, 2007 7:00 PM

My preference would be to have a form of email caching for Outlook. Have this also linked to the offline folders option in Outlook.

This would allow a user to access all their emails using any PC on the network (including a laptop - even when disconnected from the network).

I have a laptop and desktop and would love to be able to see all sent/received emails on both units.

Ice

Friday, March 2, 2007 7:13 PM

I also agree with this it does not have to be a full exchange setup just a small email server with a web interface.

I currently run SBS 2003 and find it to be overkill I would like to use the home server product but do need to have an email server to host my emails.

Damien

Saturday, March 3, 2007 1:36 AM

<Quote :Thanks for the suggestion, based on the data of our target market - it is a feature that very few people want and even fewer people want to manage.If you really want a server that provides e-mail capabilities so that you can run your own on-premise e-mail server than by Windows Small Quote>

Thanks for this suggesition. But i think other users will have the same problem that i had with sbs.

Its too big. i´ve played around with an sbs three month before, an i´ve found many things, that are not intuitively operated. the goal of whs is to be easy to use. and that is not what to say about sbs. it needs to be an it-expert with practical experience in using microsoft server systems.

whs has a very easy interface. most testers dont need to read the manual for setup an configuration. so i think many people have a dream about a server like sbs, with the usability of whs.

Saturday, March 3, 2007 7:48 AM

Ken Warren wrote:

bdo21 wrote:

For those of us who want to, can we go out and buy Exchange with 5 client licences and install it on WHS?

You would probably be better served buying SBS instead of WHS. I don't know if Exchange will even install on WHS; maybe someone else can answer that question.

The new version of exchange will not install as it requires 64bit Windows Server 2003 - WHS appears to only be 32 bit. The other limiting factor is that you will not be able to run the full active directory server on WHS.

Saturday, March 3, 2007 3:49 PM

The more I think about it, it would be useful to have a centralised storage/access for email.

We have 2 PC's at present, soon to be 3. Now if i'm working on one that hasn't got MY Outlook on, I'd need to go to the relevant PC, turn it on etc. just to check emails, whereas if there was a "centralised" storage for Outlook I could access from any of them.

Admittedly more often than not each user would be using just "their" PC, but not always.

So maybe an 'addon' for basic caching might be a good idea.

Saturday, March 3, 2007 6:52 PM

I think some e-mail related feature would be useful for the Home Server. Not as full featured or as complex as Exchange, but as someone has posted, something to centralize the storage of each user's mail. If I have 5 machines in the home, today I have Outlook configured 5 times with 5 different PST files for each user on the same 5 machines. Finding a received/sent message is a challenge. If the client can still be used to send/receive mail without an e-mail server, but the messages stored centrally for search and archive, would that still be too complex for the target market?

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 1:49 AM

I think some sort of shared calendar function would be of great use to most families. Doesn't have to integrate with anything, although that would be nice, a "simple" web page of activity would be good enough for most I would have thought?

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 4:33 PM

Several thoughts here. Let's remain focused on the big picture: simplicity. It would be better to have a secure (I'm thinking about AV and HIPS here) and simple device that performs reliable backups, shares files, and allows remote administration (this should be disabled by default for security). Let's get that part running first.

Secondly, why would you want this box to turn into foo? The fact is that there are better products available that specialize in everything that I have read about on this thread. Want to manage what the kids are doing on line? Use Safe Eyes which is regarded as one of the best systems available (and reasonably priced). It's also lightweight and virtually impossible to bypass. Why would you set up an internal calender? Use the Google calender.

For the record, I am not certain that I understand how an Exchange server will help people at home. (I would appreciate hearing how this is useful since my wife and I just use our work or gmail accounts.) We do IM each other from other rooms of the house, but still, I don't see the value in an email server.

I am not saying that these are bad ideas per se, but are they really useful in a device that is supposed to make file back ups and file sharing a brain-dead event that doesn't require manual intervention? How many people here have a regular backup system running? Not I. With this I do. Now, I can share my photo's with guests via wifi. This is good.

Let's not turn in to a linux distro that has too many half-baked features that are good but require the dreaded "man" page to operate. Spend the extra time on hardware support and built in help files.

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 5:07 PM

Hi All,

Just a thought here that may have already been mentioned,

I would also like to have e-mail centralised but I understand the risks of spamming using WHS as an e-mail server.

Not sure if this is possible but could each seperate Outlook account PST file from each PC just be saved in a folder on the WHS hard drive? I have done a similar thing when having two operating systems on one PC by saving the PST files of each account to a common accessable drive.

WHS have a feature that where it can be pointed to each Outlook PST file on each computer and told which account it is for, then, simply save a copy of the latest verion of PST (which ever computer it may be on) for each account, and transfer it to the other computers on the network either on startup if they are switched off, or instantly when the PST file is changed. This way e-mail is sent and recieved on each home computer normaly using Outlook and the latest version backed up by WHS.

Anyone see any problems with this?

Martyn

Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:15 AM

I would also like to see a stripped down version of Exchange, maybe 10 accounts max but at least 5 accounts. If you throw in a basic web server / blog setup then you have a great home setup. Families can, for example, make their own sites and have *@myname.com email addresses, have a perfect backup solution / storage area / network printer (?) etc. I don't think it would be too difficult to stick a bacic gui ontop of the email configuration part.

Saturday, March 10, 2007 4:44 PM

"The fact is that there are better products available that specialize in everything that I have read about on this thread. "

What product allows sharing of Calendars between users within the network?

"For the record, I am not certain that I understand how an Exchange server will help people at home."

I personally don't want Exchange, nor do most people asking for it, they want a few features that for the most part are only available from exchange. Included are a central repository for e-mails (most don't want a server they want the server to download them from the various accounts so they can access them offline), the calendar sharing, and maybe a few other small features, but those are the two big ones that I have heard the most.

"Why would you set up an internal calender? Use the Google calender. "

Why on earth would I EVER set up my personal calendars online? And put my contacts online? Great way to centralize the spam databases. Sorry I prefer to keep that all on my PC and leave it there.

I think Exchange is completely bloated for what I want, I have spent a lot of time looking for a good replacement for Exchange. I do not want to register and setup a domain name just so that I can share my calendar with my family. Its way too complicated. There should be some option to do these two simple features with the server. As many have said pretty much all the options offered in WHS are available in XP Pro only prettier. I like pretty but enough to buy/recommend the product? Other than going with Linux or some poorly done hacks Exchange at this stage is all I have found that does what I want, but I refuse to use it as it is too much of a headache and costs too much for what little I would use it for. At this stage I grumble and groan and leave postits all over the place for my wife and hope she gets them.

-Z

Sunday, March 11, 2007 5:47 AM

I agree that a form of email pooling would be extremely useful for the home user. I currently am a field technician with the Geek Squad and I service the very user that this product is geared towards. Right now I run in to constantly that people have multiple computers and has one email address that they want their email on both. With a POP3 account making this work correctly is nearly impossible. There are settings in Outlook to help with this problem but it is not 100%. Having a central location that will download and send a user's email with POP3 and SMTP would be a perfect solution for many users.

Clients on the home network: These clients can use a type of protocol that will allow for a user to send an email from a client PC and have it sent to the WHS. The WHS then sends and receives emails on behalf of the client. This will allow for all the same emails to be on any computer anywhere on the network.

Remote clients off the home network: My understanding is that Windows Live is going to give each WHS computer a static IP address. This will allow for a remote client to point directly at the WHS. Using the same protocol that would be used on the network side can be used remotely to send emails to and from the WHS. Then the WHS again sends and receives on behalf of the client.

This also solves another problem where most ISPs will not allow you to use any other SMTP server other than their own. Means Cox Communications makes you use their SMTP server only when on their network. At the same time it is very common for them to not allow you to use their SMTP server off of the network. This would solve this problem for remote clients.

A setup like this could be completed with little to now administrative effort on the user side. This could be done as easy as it is right now as setting up a POP3 account.

View this example.

Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:24 AM

Microsoft are trying to boost the popularity of Windows Mobile devices. Many more people are going to have access to these devices over the next few years. They already have, built in, the ability to sync with an Exchange server - as do Blackberries, Symbian and BREW phones.

So picture the nuclear family in 2008 with 2.4 children, 4 'smart' phones in the family, 3 PCs, 2 laptops and WHS. With WHS Exchange Lite, they can synchronise the family calendar from anywhere, any time. They can access emails, any where, any time. Securely, without having to use Google or Yahoo or whoever online services.

When Little Johnny Junior has band practice moved from Thursday to Friday at short notice, he can not only instantly add it to the family calendar, but he can also see first if his parents or his sister have a conflict that means he either cannot go, or he has to contact Aunt Betty for a lift home. He can check the family address book for Aunt Betty's phone or email info and get in touch with her about the lift.

Oh - Aunt Betty moved last week? What's her new phone number? Not to worry, Mum updated the phone number on the family Contacts database the day Betty moved.

Sure not every family wants this. Mostly because they don't see how convenient it could be for them.

Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:13 PM

I agree totally with Exchange lite being included - similar to how it is with SBS. It would not need to be fully functional, shared calendars, shared contacts, server based email storage, and maybe have a smart-host connector so that your home server can pull your email from your ISP for you. I do not think there is a need for an external connector directly on WHS to receive your email, but server based storage would be cool.

Sunday, March 11, 2007 8:44 PM

**disclaimer - I am currently downloading the DVD install package and haven't installed it yet - these comments are based only on the doc files and posts that I have read so far. **

I've read all the discussion around email and have to add in my thoughts for Microsoft to consider:

If Microsoft doesn't do something about managing home email with WHS - someone else will. This is a HUGE hole in the home network market.

I have four people in my house, with a total of 15 POP3 email accounts [and 6 webmail accounts (Hotmail, Google, Yahoo)]. All the POP3 accounts are loaded into a single instance of Outlook. This means that everyone has to line up at a single computer to check their emails, but everything is in one place (easily backed-up) and we can keep in an eye on what the kids are sending/getting.

WHS is the perfect platform to run some kind of central email storage capability on. If logins on XP and Vista can be mapped to a specific shared folder than individual PST files could be available anywhere. Of course there is also another option: a kind of "webmail connector" that would run as a service on WHS, and provide a WEB interface into multiple POP3 accounts. Setup would be no harder than a normal email account: Server, username, etc - but now from any PC in the house, someone could use a browser to access any & all their email accounts - with the config residing on WHS.

But there is another part I don't recall anyone mentioning:

SHARED CALENDARS

Our household would grid to a halt if our outlook calendar was gone. The ability for multiple people to schedule items, publish them, and share them with the family is critical. Vista has the "Windows Calendar" tool which will work just fine - as long as Home Server can be a publishing point for it. This is critical because of the redundant backup capability of Home Sever.

And as long as you are thinking about making this a truely home server - things like "My favorites" would be awesome on a central server and available from any PC in the house that I log in from.

-tom

Monday, March 12, 2007 1:36 AM

Let me also wade in on the side of including some means of centralised storage for mail, contacts and calendars. It doesn't have to be a full blown mail server like Exchange, but there are five people in our house accessing up to four PC's including a laptop and trying to keep track of which machine a message was downloaded to is a nightmare, let alone trying to determine where the contact details for cousin Fred are stored - and actually, which is the up to date version. Oh forgot my PDA as well.

Anyone seen the shared calendar in Microsoft Works? It's designed for multiple users on a single PC, but something like that sort of interface would work just fine from WHS. I'm not yet familiar with the new calendaring functionality in Vista, but from what I've read, I think that too is for multiple users on a single PC. To be honest, our multiuser calendar at home is still the physical one behind the door in the kitchen, but really in this day and age, something accessible from multiple machines at home would be so useful.

Allan

Monday, March 12, 2007 2:47 AM

Anyone consider the idea of just having an "exchange lite" set up for local access only, configured so it cannot relay outside? Having the ability to do local shared email/calenders/contact lists/etc would actually be nice. Hell, even a modified version of Office Communicator would be welcome.

Realistically, even Microsoft offers free web mail that can be read on any computer with internet access. I don't see a reason to reinvent the wheel, especially when they already have Windows Live Mail Desktop in beta. Even the ability to consolidate email between multiple accounts isn't a great option because it relies on a seperate client to interact with it in a sane way. A seperate third party application would probably work much better.

But having the ability to allow some degree of communication between the profiles would be of great benefit. Being able to leave messages for other users that they can read regardless of which computer they use would be nice. Having a shared calender system would be useful. A global address book would be useful. And the best part is the tools are in place to sync all this stuff down to PDA's and smartphones - so that you have the ability to take it on the road with you.

Monday, March 12, 2007 6:56 AM

I see. While I do not yet see the personal usefulness of a central calendar, I can see why people would like this. I agree that some sort of software should be included. If nothing else, a basic version of Exchange. Something that allows the central repository of the clients. At least this should show up by V2.

Ya'll won me on this one. :-) Let's just ensure the system is secure by default.

Monday, March 12, 2007 1:25 PM

I just recently installed WHS and the first thing that came to mind after setting it up and looking through its feature set was. This would be even better if I could run exchange off of here too. I think this should be and option or an addon. Think of it you get yourself a domain name for the family set up exchange on the WHS and you set up outlook on all your client computers as an exchange client. You can now get rid of all the gmail, yahoo email address's or foward them if you like to your new email address. Being an exchange client you can have multiple PC's and have all the email synched on all of them just fine. No worrying about pop3 settings where you can only set it to keep your inbox so you can view it on all PC's. Now all items are viewable on all of your PC's whether it be your laptop or desktop. If you are off you network on your laptop you could still connect into exchange via outlook over https or OWA. Like others have mentioned before you can have shared calendars with your family and public folders. As far as backup is concerned WHS could do a nightly backup of the exchange store so you could recover in the case of failure. Now you could also say well just run SBS if you want an exchange server setup. But Why run 2 servers in your home 24x7 if you can do all of the same from one box. I know that managing and exchange box isnt for everyone but I dont think its that difficult to learn; at minimum I would love for this to be an addon or an option to have.

Monday, March 12, 2007 3:56 PM

dghost wrote:

There are many reasons why people either do not use web mail, and why web mail is not their only email option.

Anyway, whilst I understand why Microsoft may be reluctant to include Exchange Lite or similar in WHS, it seems pretty clear to me that the arguments in favour of it are very strong. I hope we can encourage Microsoft to have a change of heart over this.

Monday, March 12, 2007 7:31 PM

WE NEED an Exchange type of solution...

BUT we are not asking for Exchange .... BECAUSE it is too hard for the average person to set up and maintain as many have said...

Now if you could set up a wizard for say up to 10 accounts and have a centralized mail store on the WHS then each user would be able to access all their mail from any machine. (for those worried about privacy within the home accounts you could enable a login password to get to your centralized mail account)/

This leaves Only 1 post office file to back up (automatically by the WHS) and calendars could be shared between all family members....

fyi.. I will never use a web based mail service because my e-mail is private and because I need to keep copies of it.

As said by others if MS misses the boat on this shame on them... If this is implemented on the WHS along with shared directories and folder duplication I believe every home will find that they must have this appliance.

Image a home where users will never lose track of a file or e-mail message even if a computer crashes… and they can restore any of the home computers at a touch of the button... THIS IS A KILLER APPLICATION

GaryR

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:00 PM

I agree. Email is simply too important a feature to be left out of WHS. I just installed Beta 2 and am thus far pleased with the backup functionality but was shocked not to find any email support. For me, email is more important than all the files, photos, or media I might backup to WHS.

Having a central place to archive my mail (with virtually unlimited quotas) and access Outlook email, calendar, and contact information remotely is critical.

Here’s a summary of the features I’d love to see:

Centralized email access

Not just POP/IMAP but Exchange-like Outlook connectivity at home (e.g. Outlook Connector)
A web interface for remote access (not ActiveX or RDP)

How does email get to WHS?

POP/IMAP fetching (like in Exchange/SBS) or…
Direct SMTP routing via MX records to your home server with static IP or dynamic DNS

It would be great if Live Domains could be integrated into this picture to provide mail delivery backup in the event your home server is unavailable, as some third party DNS providers do.

How is email sent?

In the first case (fetching), directly to your ISP’s SMTP server. No open relay problems here.
In the second case, the SMTP server can easily be configured properly during setup by Microsoft not to be an open relay. E.g. it can only listen for outgoing mail from your local subnet. External outgoing mail would be rejected unless you send a message via the web interface.

Shared Calendar for family members. And, some way to publish calendars to the home website for friends to access (with some simple permission model).
Shared Contacts for family members, as well as access to my personal (private) contacts via Outlook/web. This is like Exchange's global contacts vs. personal contacts.
ActiveSync/Push Email support for Windows Mobile devices. This is a must.

As many have pointed out, all of these features (and then some) are part of Exchange. Configured properly, the open relay comment is really not a problem at all. Microsoft can fix this in the automated email configuration. I love the idea of an Exchange option pack for advanced users. It seems the only major issue here would be to integrate Active Directory into WHS’s user management system and release a 32-bit version of Exchange 2007 (which we know exists as it’s available for download on 120-day trial).

Being able to backup my .pst files is a nice idea, but I think this is insufficiently dynamic. Having live email access centrally stored in WHS would be a far superior solution. Indeed, it would make WHS a very unique and compelling product in the marketplace, rather than yet another backup device/scheme. At the moment, I don't see what WHS does that can't already be done by using OneCare to backup to an external drive and sharing folders in a home network and web interface.

When I saw WHS at CES, I immediately remembered the Cobalt Qube server appliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobalt_Qube). Knowing how easy it was for small businesses to setup a network with the old Qube appliance, I really liked the idea of WHS doing the same for the home. Sadly, without some kind of central email service, I feel this product will really miss the mark.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007 9:23 PM

I installed HS 2 days ago and also looked immediately for an email server. I admit I wasn't surprised to find it didn't have one, essentially for the reasons of end-user complexity that have already been stated.

Why do I want one? Several reasons:

1) I value my privacy: I don't want my email on someone else's server where a court can order it to be scrutinized. I don't have any deep, dark secrets, but it's none of their business. Privacy is a basic human need, like breathing and eating, and I want mine protected... by me.

2) my ISP automatically deletes email from their servers every 30 days. They implemented this policy despite statements that they wouldn't when I signed up. I voiced my objections at the time, but they ignored them of course, and I now feel it's for the best since I now control how long the mail stays in my mailbox. It also gives me the ability to have crucial information available from any web browser, no matter where I am.

3) most ISP-based emails have limits on the size of attachments. On my server I also have limits, but they're way bigger than my ISP's. My work also has limits that have caused problems, like when I had to send some digital photos of a work site to a contractor. I ended up creating a mailbox for him on my own server, signing into my account, composing an email to the contractor with the photos attached, and then sent him an email from my work mailbox on how he could get them. I've actually followed this procedure 3 or 4 times with different contractors.

Today I installed the free version of WinWebMail on my HS. I've configured my router to forward port 8000 to port 80 and port 4430 to 443. I've tested it and can now sign into WinWebMail from outside my LAN. Once I get my DDNS name for HS set up and a virtual mail server created on my router, I'm hoping I'll be able to get some test emails going in and out. BTW, I forwarded the ports the way I did because I couldn't get it to work properly when I changed the port numbers in IIS. For some reason, I could only sign into the mail server from a brower session running on HS itself; from any other computer in the house (on the same LAN) it would just time out. But, I'm no IIS expert, so if anyone can help, please do.

BTW, does anyone know how I go about setting up my DDNS name for HS, or is that service not ready yet?

Oops. Found the answer to my port issue in a post by 1ne — forgot to open 8000 and 4430 in the HS firewall

Saturday, March 31, 2007 4:24 AM

Comments deleted.

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 1:36 AM

YES! This is exactly what I'm wanting! Maybe somebody will come up with a 3rd party solution?

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 7:08 PM

I see a place for a email program that collects emails and sends email like a server but has no direct connections.

All emails come from and go to the hosts ISPs mail server.

All emails are stored on WHS for safe keeping.

All client pc have a shared calender if wanted.

All this is an option and not installed at setup of WHS.

I dont see a point in putting exchange on WHS as the minimum specs will go out the window.

I dont use exchange for email serving, I have found a third party product I like.

Allan

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 9:11 PM

So what third party product is it that you like?

Wednesday, May 9, 2007 11:32 PM

I use mdaemon on my servers and some customer servers.

but even mdaemon is to big for WHS.

Allan

Thursday, May 10, 2007 3:01 AM

I just want my server to download my emails from the ISP (and my other email accounts) and be able to access them on any computer using Outlook and also be able to access my Calendar.... this would be no problem if Outlook .PST files would not become corrupt over a network.

Sunday, May 13, 2007 1:50 AM

I'm using the excellent VPOP3, which I have used for many years. It collects from and consolidates a number of mail accounts and splits them into separate mailboxes. It has support for Outlook (or other popular) clients to collect over the network and also provides a web client interface. Available as an extra is pretty effective and configurable updating spam filtering - if spam gets through you can even send it back for the filter to learn. They have also just added a network calendar. It has a small footprint and is very configurable, including restricting large downloads, auto-connect schedule and more.

The basic home version supports 5 users for $57, and I think there is a 30-day evaluation.

Have a look at http://www.vpop3.co.uk (not .com!)

I have no connection, other than being a very satisfied user.

Sunday, May 13, 2007 8:46 PM

I still have not found an acceptable solution to sharing my outlook calendars with my wife. vpop3 sets up a web calendar. I still expect to have something to share the calendar included with the server. I spent enough on the software that I shouldn't have to pop down another $3000 for a feature in outlook from a package that is completely bloated for what I need. I am sorry, sharing important information like schedules with family shouldn't be considered a high end business feature.

I use my 8125 for all my scheduling and back it up on my pc. Would be nice if my wife could see what I had planned instead of having to try and remember to put it on a paper calendar for her.

Asking to be able to consolidate our e-mail OFFLINE as well as enjoy the calendar sharing that came with Outlook isn't really that much to ask for, nor is it a reason for people to swear against it. Those 2 features aren't performance killers, I am sorry.

Monday, May 14, 2007 2:33 PM

Hi.

I have been using Windows XP home networking for a couple of years with multiple pcs through the house and 4 familiy members using them often simultaneously. The only key functionality we miss is the simultaneously shareable outlook datafile between multiple outlook clients.

It is no problem to have email of multiple outlook accounts coming in to which pc is synchronizing at any time. It is however, a real drag that any outlook archive/mailstore on the central disk can not be accessed by multiple clients simultaneously. The first outlook client opening the outlook datafile locks it for any subsequent client trying to read or write email onto it.

seems to me to be a very simple thing to resolve especially with Homeserver.

Monday, October 22, 2007 6:49 PM

Rene

The issue there is with the way that Outlook handles the data file. This isnt really a problem for WHS to solve, its purely and simply the way Outlook works and would need Outlook to be changed.

Now personally, I would love that problem solved in Outlook for many reasons :-)

Andrew

Monday, October 22, 2007 7:39 PM

Moderator

Sorry to bump this back up to the top of the list again, but I only found out about WHS a few days ago.

When I read the article in a magazine, I thought 'yes' this is just what I need - a centralised server for the home. Then I read on... no email server - 'oh no'.

I've got a family: I want all the emails to be stored centrally (and resiliently!) and accessible from any computer we have. I'd like to have shared calendars and shared contacts.

I've bought Office for them all, so they all have Outlook - but I have no (affordable) email / calendar (etc) software from MS to tie them all together.

I would have thought WHS would have been the perfect platform for this type of software.

Disappointed...

Taliska

Sunday, December 2, 2007 12:02 AM

ZDC wrote:

Check out http://www.softalkltd.com/products/workgroupshare/

They have several products that do what everyone is asking on this thread. I'm using their WorkgroupShare product on my WHS to share my Outlook 2007 Calendar with my wife. I got this last night and set it up on my WHS and was sharing calendars within 10 minutes. It is very easy to set up. I just RDC into my WHS to administer it.

5 Users - $175

"The WorkgroupShare collaboration server lets your staff share their Microsoft Outlook folders, such as contacts, calendars, tasks, notes and email. Full administrative control is provided, letting you define the exact access that each user has to other users� folders. WorkgroupShare can optionally use SQL Server for its data storage, rather than JET, providing greater scalability and reliability for the WorkgroupShare server"

They have a product called WorkgroupMail that is a suitable replacement for Exchange Server:

5 Users - $135

"The WorkgroupMail messaging server is the server of choice for tens of thousands of organizations across the world. It provides secure and reliable email delivery, day in and day out. Its storage is based on proven database technology and thus combines high performance with high scalability, making it the ideal choice for any sized organization. It supports POP3, SMTP and IMAP protocols. Its feature set includes rule-based content filtering, virus protection, anti-spam protection, SSL secure communications, mailing lists, public folders and message archiving"

Thursday, December 13, 2007 4:33 PM

The capability of having the ability to save *.pst is appealing.

Is the ability to gather/accumulate multiple *.pst files from multiple machines a third party prospective application?

Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:16 PM

The household mail server needs to be kept simple.... A lot of people jump to the conclusion that what is being asked for is an exchange server.... NO>>>> that is way to complicated to set up and manage.

We need a simple way to keep a centralized mail store on the home server. I have 4 machines in my home and would like to be able to work from any machine by login in using my user ID and then have my outlook (or outlook express) client work from that machine with the PST files centrally located on the server.... but that is not supported at this time.

Gar7

Thursday, December 20, 2007 12:58 AM

Well, here is a possible answer, if someone can help me implement it.

This article by Brian Peek - http://blogs.msdn.com/coding4fun/archive/2007/08/10/4320362.aspx shows how to create some code that causes Outlook on a client PC to show up as a web page on WHS. He even gives a sample of the code here - http://www.codeplex.com/WHSMail/Release/ProjectReleases.aspx?ReleaseId=6346

I have not tried it yet, as I am not a programmer. There may be some issues as my server name is not SERVER. Maybe someone smart can turn this into a turnkey add-in with instructions on how to load the code onto the outlook host machine. Probably would work best if Outlook were loaded on the WHS and you accessed through the web interface. Sure would make my life easier!

mbeloff

Friday, December 28, 2007 11:42 PM

Now it has been some time since that latest post on this issue, and I am interested in knowing if there is any news.

I do believe that a mail server on whs would be usefull, and it need not to be more complicated then setting up the POP3 client for windows outlook/outlook express.

I have 3 kids and they vary in age 16, 8, and 6. For the kid it would be great if he could download mail from the whs, og at least get web access to his mails, for the the others it would be great if the could read the mails, they recieve from other family members, on their own computer on their own mailbox.

So if there is any news let me know.

Regards

Dennis

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:15 PM

This Windows Home Server team blog post (from February of last year) explains why there is no email server in Windows Home Server, and why there probably will never be one.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:24 PM

Moderator

dwoldike wrote:

Now it has been some time since that latest post on this issue, and I am interested in knowing if there is any news.

I do believe that a mail server on whs would be usefull, and it need not to be more complicated then setting up the POP3 client for windows outlook/outlook express.

So if there is any news let me know.

Regards

Dennis

dwoldike,

It does not look like this will ever become part of WHS, but I'm using Softalk Mail Server from http://www.softalkltd.com

to do exactly what you are asking. It is pretty simple to set up. You install the server on the WHS, set the server up to collect the mail from your current POP3 servers - just put in your current POP3 & SMTP addresses. Then you set up the e-mail client on your kids computers to access the WHS. Instead of their current POP3 & SMTP addresses, the IP address of the WHS is used. It's as easy as that. It's not free, but it does not cost as much or is not as complicated as Exchange Server.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 3:52 PM

Softalk Mail Server is pretty expensive ($135 for 5 users, $260 for 10). You might want to look at Ability Mail ($109 for 25 users). I used it during the WHS beta and found it worked quite well. Most importantly, it allowed me the ability to use alternate SMTP ports. I needed this because my ISP, and most others now, block outbound port 25.

I tried another freeware mail server (can't remember the name) but, even though it was supposed to support alternate SMTP ports, I couldn never get it to work with my ISP. I will likely be looking into mail servers again in the next few weeks so, if I find anything useful, I'll post it.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 7:19 PM

I have mentioned it before, but Vpop3 is a powerful, configurable mail server that comes with its own web client and spam filter, but also supports POP3 clients (eg Outlook). The Home Edition is $57 for 5 users and is very configurable.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 8:24 PM

Have a look at SmarterMail, they have a free edition for up to 10 users. http://www.smartertools.com/Products/SmarterMail/Free.aspx. POP3 download from multiple sources into mailboxes. Nice webmail interface. Can integrate into Homeserver IIS and be externally accessible via a "whoever.homeserver.com/mymail" type URL. Can use as local IMAP or POP3 server for family. Also connector for Outlook and PocketPC, Appointments, Contacts etc.

Unsure about alternate Port mapping. I'm passing outgoing email via my ISP's SMTP server.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008 8:34 PM

I want to strongly agree with having some type of email support. My wife is a high volume email user in her work, which is conducted mostly at home, she is a pastor, and has lots of communication, i.e. she has 100s if not 1000s of email organized and categorized. I was trying to figure out if Windows Home Server would accomadate this and be able to keep a good backup of her stuff. It would appear the client computers will have to function on their own. It seems short sighted to not include email since we are all emailing right and left. Also, the "family" aspects of this system should not be lost. We are now experiencing the "empty nest". I was very much contemplating this server as a way for the family to communicate more freely and easily. Email capabilities would be nice. Obviously, sharing pictures and video would be great, but email would be equally nice. I guess the system backup would capture it all. But, I was surprised since I use SBS at work and am so appreciative of its email capabilities, that this does not have email services available. We have several email adresses through our ISP for various reasons, having the ability to keep this all organized and backed up would be nice.

Friday, January 11, 2008 12:08 AM

SmarterMail looks like it could be a solution... and it is free for 10 users which is perfect for WHS.

I downloaded it but do not understand how to install it into WHS... How do I turn on WHS's IIS? How do I configure user accounts etc?. I believe that if someone can develop a step by step guide we could all use it.... SmarterMail seems to provide the ability to just log into a user account on the WHS (from any computer) and get their centralized mail with the ability to share folders and calendars. ALL MAIL, Address books, and Calendars are stored in separate user accounts on the WHS. We can also use WHS folder duplication so that we would never have lost e-mails again.

Friday, January 11, 2008 4:15 PM

gar7 wrote:

SmarterMail looks like it could be a solution... and it is free for 10 users which is perfect for WHS.

WHSs' IIS is on - it's what is serving the remote access xyx.homeserver.com webpage. (I think)

Friday, January 11, 2008 4:48 PM

That's right - so we do need to be careful of things that might interfere with it or take it over - some applications (like Sharepoint) use the same ports that WHS does, so sometimes some juggling is necessary.

Friday, January 11, 2008 8:38 PM

I agree Tom.

Also because of WHS beeing a V1.0 product, for the moment I would rather see the WHS Team focussed on the current target market for WHS "basic" functionality (and maybe extending that) first.

But I also think adding Home Server e-mail functionality could be a very good sellingpoint for WHS. Maybe marketed as an upgrade/premium version (maybe in V2.0 in combination with other extras like extended storage space in the system C: partition for server applications).

As more and more people are installing "a server in the house", I guess the number of people that *do* want to manage these kind of services is growing every day. Actually I would not be surpriced if some third-party integrator will jump in on this shortly...

Saturday, January 12, 2008 9:52 PM

Moderator

Configuring e-mail can be a pain. For a small amount of money each year it can be easily hosted. Configure MX records for your domain and all that other stuff may be too complex for the average user. Another big issue is spam. I own my own domain and I have a few different spam providers that have 'hijacked' my domain. As a result, many e-mail systems reply back to my domain saying different things like 'user doesn't exist' or 'your spam was blocked'. Even though I didn't send them messages, because they used my domain....all replies come to me. I get about 4,000 a day. I use Yahoo! e-mail services and they are all blocked.

Additionally, if my server is down (turned off or unavailable because my provider is frequently down [Comcast]) there is a chance I may miss messages. Some servers are set to continue to try sending mail X number of times. This number is commonly 5. The time in between tries can me a short term, like 2 hours. If your server is down for a day or a night you may miss important messages.

I wouldn't really want to put the load of processing all this e-mail on my little HP EX470 server. I would rather use it to serve files, do backups, and remote connectivity. While the POP3/IMAP services themselves may have a small footprint, the potential processing of data will increase. I'm sure when you first start using the services you may only process a small amount of mail. As time goes on there will be additional challenges.

Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:48 PM

Again... the key is simplicity for the HOME user. In my case I am not sure I want to or even need to create my own postoffice. I would expect to keep the e-mail accounts I have from my current provider. I am only looking for a centralized mail server that would handle a max of 10 users (which is the limit of home server I believe). Ideally it would be as simple as entering the POP info or HTML info just like we do today for setting up Outlook. With a centralized mail server we would get to keep all messages at home (on a backed up server) instead of in the cloud somewhere...

Gary

Monday, January 14, 2008 2:28 PM

For those interested, the makers of VPOP are working on a WHS version of their popular email server. The company website is found at http://www.vpop3.co.uk/ and you can find the discussion area for WHS at http://discuss.pscs.co.uk/fusionbb/showforum.php?fid/29/

Here's a reprint of the current progress report from Paul Smith, Technical Support

Code Block

A quick "progress report".

We have a WHS console tab which can be used to access the VPOP3 settings. It actually uses an integrated web browser so there's not too much behind the scenes work needed. We just need to design all the settings pages now.

The concept will be that the settings will be VERY cut-back. There'll be a list of users (obtained from the WHS user list). Each user will have an optional 'mail collector' setting which can get mail just for that user. There will also be a single optional 'catch-all mail collector' and a 'mail sender'. The 'connection' method will always be 'LAN' (I can't see any Home Server users having a dial-up modem).

Users will also have a list of 'aliases', an autoresponder, and a 'copy all incoming and/or outgoing messages to' setting.

There may also be a personal 'whitelist' for each user - this means that children can only receive messages from approved contacts.

That'll essentially be it. I think that should cover what most home users will want.

The spam filter will automatically be on.

For now you will install normal VPOP3 using the normal method, then the WHS console tab using the WHS method. You will be able to access the normal VPOP3 settings as normal, or use the WHS console tab for the cut-down features.

In the future, we plan to have a special WHS version of VPOP3 which will have some standard VPOP3 features disabled (lists, advanced settings etc). This will cost nothing to buy, but there'll be a £40 + VAT (at the moment) cost per year to get the spam filter updates, and it won't work without this. This will give you up to the 10 users supported by WHS.
(There'll still be the option to buy a normal version of VPOP3 to run on WHS, with the current licencing).

We also plan to add support to use the 'avast for WHS' virus scanning software in the WHS version of VPOP3. This has been approved by avast, so won't incur any extra cost over the normal 'avast for WHS' licence price.

Paul Smith PSCS Technical Support

Vernon L. Vincent

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:11 PM

Cool! Thanks for posting the update. I am running the regular version (on my W2k3 box) and I think it is a great piece of software. The Spam Filter catches loads of unnecessary rubbish across various accounts, worth every penny!

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:21 PM

Has anyone tried Mercury32, it has some daemons and stuff that enable virus and spam filtering, imap/pop/smtp support and free for personal use.

http://www.pmail.com

We used it at work ages ago and its fairly straight forward to setup.

Friday, January 18, 2008 3:02 PM

I am using SmarterMail and it works quite well.... but does anyone know how to set it up for IMAP?

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:58 PM

According to the SmarterMail website if you use an Outlook client it will suport IMAP...

Generic instructions on setting up outlook for IMAP to SmarterMail can be found here:

http://support.smartertools.com/customer/KBArticle.aspx?articleid=25&KBSearchID=159614

Can you post a step by step install proceedure on how you installed it, and configured it on the WHS?

We could use this as a starting point for further installs and could add to your paper if we find problems... this way everyone could use the program... I could not figure out how to get it setup initially but the program looks like it would fit the bill for me.

thanks,

GaryR

Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:16 PM

I have been using Mercury32 with no problems for some time. I am working on a walk through for the We Got Served site at the moment.

Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:30 PM

Thanks for the link... unfortunately I have seen it before... it only tells how to setup Outlook for IMAP on the client end but I am trying to figure out how to setup SmarterMail to do IMAP.

I would be glad to post step by step but I don't even remember exactly how I did it... I just kept fooling around with it until I got it to work. Sorry. Right now SmarterMail downloads my emails to my WHS so that I can read them over the web but I have it setup to leave a copy on the server so that I can also download my emails to my other computers. But I use the SmarterMail Outlook Sync tool that syncs all my Calendar, Contacts, and Notes. But I was hoping to use IMAP instead because it sounds like it would be more like Exchange.

gar7 wrote:

According to the SmarterMail website if you use an Outlook client it will suport IMAP...

Generic instructions on setting up outlook for IMAP to SmarterMail can be found here:

http://support.smartertools.com/customer/KBArticle.aspx?articleid=25&KBSearchID=159614

Can you post a step by step install proceedure on how you installed it, and configured it on the WHS?

thanks,

GaryR

Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:39 PM

Padgetti wrote:

Thanks for the link... unfortunately I have seen it before... it only tells how to setup Outlook for IMAP on the client end but I am trying to figure out how to setup SmarterMail to do IMAP.

SmarterMail is serving up an IMAP connection "out of the box", so you really don't need to do anything to except create an IMAP connection from your mail client to your IMAP (home server) server. I'm assuming that you are attempting to connect inside your LAN. Of course if you are attempting to connect from the outside, you would need to ensure that ports 143 (or 993 for secure) are forwarded.

What specifically is causing you a problem?

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:21 PM

amarsh wrote:

Padgetti wrote:

Thanks for the link... unfortunately I have seen it before... it only tells how to setup Outlook for IMAP on the client end but I am trying to figure out how to setup SmarterMail to do IMAP.

What specifically is causing you a problem?

That's what I was afraid of.... Yes I am within my own network and I tried to setup Outlook to check the SmarterMail server by IMAP and POP3 but with no luck.... I just thought I was missing a setting on the SmarterMail end. I found this in their knowledgebase: Troubleshooting: MailService not doing anything I'm afraid it will have to be my next step.... but I'm hoping someone will come out with a step-by-step for SmarterMail or better yet a WHS Add-in!

Monday, January 21, 2008 12:02 AM

Hey All...

I'm new to this site, and this is my first post... But would like to add some of my comments.

Currently, I'm an SBS2003 User, and one of the features I very much like about it, is the access of OWA... I can check my e-mail during the day, yet, have full access to all my e-mail. In the evening I come home, and startup my laptop, and view exactly the same e-mail that I have access to through OWA. The e-mail I have sent and the e-mails I have received are there in my outlook.

So probably, my suggestion for the WHS is not to implement a version of Exchange or the sort, but just a POP3 collector box, that allows you access through OWA, and yet, when you come home in the evening, and startup outlook, your mail is there exactly the same as what it was in OWA. It really shouldn't be that hard to implement a Pop3 Collector for various mailboxes, and host it in some scalled down OWA website, within WHS, with all your other mail. Yes, you could do it via remote access connectivity to your machine at home, but this really defeats the purpose of having a low powered/low consumption machine if you gonna turn on a second machine just to keep track of your e-mail!!!!.

Thsi would probably be one of the only features that has put me off the WHS at this point in time, but yet, I'm still contemplating moving all my data onto a WHS due to the reduced admin requirements/work that WHS has over SBS2003. I don't really care about the SMTP stuff, as this can be easly hosted by 3rd party site.

Besides... configuring Pop3 is really not all that much complicated than connecting another machine or configuring the media center connectivity & scheduler, etc. Really... who is this product really aimed at? and the fact is, E-mail is just as important as pictures/files/media clips/home movies/etc, as it's an integral part of our lives and day-to-day IT requirements at home, regardless of if you are a novice or expert... So I don't understand how MS could think that e-mail wasn't important to the average @ home person?

And having it accessible through your OWA as well as Outlook on your desktop, will ensure that there is a backup copy of the most important mail of the household... I enjoyed this very much in SBS2003, where I had several instances of failed hdd, and having this setup, was brilliant, as I haven't lost a single e-mail with this setup... hence, it might be beneficial to have this integration of pop3 collector->mail box->outlook or OWA setup capability. Who cares about the SMTP part, as that is for the experts really.

These are just my thoughts.

MIKE.

Monday, January 21, 2008 2:21 AM

Mike,

The kind of home email server I am thinking about wouldn't need MX records nor anything like that.

Here's the model:

Outlook lets me set up lots of POP3 accounts to pull my email into a PSF file.

Just give me a system that seperates out the "POP3" pull engine from the rest of outlook. then I have the central server "troll" through my POP3 accounts and pull in all the mail - and I could use Outlook from ANY of my computers to open my mail file (located on the home server).

Sending email would be done through the SMTP for whatever account I picked in outlook.

This accomplishes three things:

1) the "always on" server pulls down the mail

2) I can access the mail from any machine on my home network

3) the mail is backed up becuase its on the WHS machine.

The email "servers" with a retry, etc..., are the ISP's emails. This system looks more like a smart batch client than an email server - connecting to various POP3 accounts, pulling down the emails, and sending back through the other account SMTP servers.

Personally I find it dissapointing that Microsoft has this great program, Outlook, for managing multiple POP3 accounts, calendars, etc - but CAN'T find a way to make it usable in a home environment. SBS is for BUSIENSS - I'm looking for a HOME mail manager.

Just my .02 cents.

Monday, January 21, 2008 3:52 AM

Padgetti wrote:

Padgetti - just on the off-chance, check in the IIS Manager for your Home Server that the ASP.NET tab for the SmarterMail web site is showing ASP.NET 2 and not 1.1.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:11 AM

-tv- wrote:

The kind of home email server I am thinking about wouldn't need MX records nor anything like that.

Here's the model:

Outlook lets me set up lots of POP3 accounts to pull my email into a PSF file.

Just give me a system that seperates out the "POP3" pull engine from the rest of outlook. then I have the central server "troll" through my POP3 accounts and pull in all the mail - and I could use Outlook from ANY of my computers to open my mail file (located on the home server).

Sending email would be done through the SMTP for whatever account I picked in outlook.

That's "sort of" how I have been using SmarterMail.

No MX record set up, I pull down mail for each home user, from various POP3 sources. The mail is stored in the mailserver and is accessible either via IMAP and the SmarterMail Outlook connector if using Outlook with Calendaring etc for each user. This can happen from any machine in the house. Where there is a difference from your ideal though is that all POP3 sources for each user is downloaded into a single SmarterMail account for that user.

Outgoing email is sent via SMTP thru my ISP's SMTP server acting as Smart Host (Exchange server terminology), or what SmarterMail calls a Gateway Server.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:29 AM

amarsh wrote:

Padgetti wrote:

Padgetti - just on the off-chance, check in the IIS Manager for your Home Server that the ASP.NET tab for the SmarterMail web site is showing ASP.NET 2 and not 1.1.

Starting to get over my head.... but I found it and yes ASP .NET is 2.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:30 AM

I've installed SmarterMail but I have the problem of it not being able to send mail because my ISP blocks port 25. I've checked out the "Alternate SMTP port", which is not well documented (I'm still not sure I found all the places where you need to change the port). Unfortunately, it still won't send. One issue seems to be that SM doesn't understand that many ISP's require not only a different port, but also a login ID and password before they will forward mail on. I haven't found anywhere to enter those credentials.

AbilityMail, on the other hand, very clearly identifies this feature and it worked 1st time I tried it. Unfortunately, there is no free, limited, home version. The lowest price is $109US.

If someone knows for sure how to set up SmarterMail to work with ISP's that block port 25 I would appreciate detailed instructions.

cheers.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:43 PM

Would be happy with -tv-'s idea but don't understand why Microsoft didn't use the Vista/XP model and produce an 'Ultimate' version with a basic mail server included.

The majority of 'home' users can buy the home version and those of us that have multiple email accounts and who are prepared to pay a SMALL premium, could have the added mail server.

Happy to bet that there is a middle ground that won't affect their Exchange custome but that would satisfy the slightly more adventurous/advanced?? home user.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:15 AM

I would like to raise my hand on someone who would like to see the ability to manage e-mail be a part of WHS. Here's why:

IMAP is a wonderful way of using e-mail from many places and many computers, and would solve most of the requests in this thread. I use it at work and access the same e-mail around the word and from 3 different sources. Problem is, MOST ISP's in the USA don't have IMAP as an option; only POP3. My ideal solution/suggestion would be for WHS to "make" any e-mail into a IMAP service.

Basically, it would work like this:

- On WHS, configure all POP3 accounts that everyone is using. This would be the same as just setting up an e-mail client, but would be done on WHS instead.

- On WHS, for each POP3 account setup above, specificy which WHS User would be the receipient for that e-mail.

- For each user, they would have their own IMAP account used to access their individual "pooled" e-mail from all POP3 accounts.

- Each user would configure their e-mail client with their WHS created IMAP settings, just as if they were setting up their POP3 e-mail.

- Sending messages would use the configured SMTP server (from the first item), basically making it transparent to the ISP and avoiding relaying/port blocking issues. Just like picking the "preferred" account in Outlook 2007.

There is nothing new for a user to learn how to do, configure, manage, etc.. The configuration is the same as if they were configuring an e-mail client.

Basically, it would make WHS a POP3 collector, then provide it's own IMAP service. Simple. Then, to make it even better for family use:

- Webmail access

- Family calender, which is can be accessed both in webmail (like Google Calendar), and through the Outlook calendar.

- Duplication of the "IMAP stores" to prevent loss of e-mails (folder duplication)

- Storing of contacts

- Autoresponder (aka away message)

MS products already do this in one form or fashion, and in multiple products. Thoughts?

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:40 AM

I agree that this is a useful feature, if implemented properly (ie, dirt simple to manage).

I also agree that MS is making the right decision in *not* including it. I concur that in the broad target market, this isn't incredibly useful. But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be implemented. Just not by MS.

They need to concentrate on far more important other things, like:

- fixing corruption bugs

- useful Media Center integration / more advanced streaming

- enhancing the backup software (manual backups of the backup db is just wrong...I know PP1 will address some of this)

- supporting a *small* system drive that can be 100% independent of primary data partition

- fixing corruption bugs (yeah, it's that important ;-).

LIke I said, it's a great feature idea. One that I'm sure one or more 3rd party developer will implement. Once I finish the Add-In I'm working on now for my OEM version of WHS, I'll look into it. I've written several email and nntp servers in the past and have a solid code base to start from. This would not be difficult to implement.

But why wait? There are a plethora of mail servers out there that will do what you want. Probably some for free. They will install on WHS just fine. That will get you going until some 3rd party releases what you are looking for.

- Rhino

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 9:05 AM

Ryan,

I disagree with you when you say that MS should not be the one to implement e-mail capability... I know you work for MS and the WHS team has said that they believe implementing an active directory type system is way to expensive and complicated... However that is NOT WHAT IS NEEDED... all we need is simple collector using EXISTING commericial e-mail providers... "NotYou" sid it above when he said "- On WHS, configure all POP3 accounts that everyone is using. This would be the same as just setting up an e-mail client, but would be done on WHS instead.

- On WHS, for each POP3 account setup above, specificy which WHS User would be the receipient for that e-mail. "

I can tell you that everyone I have taked to who wants to BUY the WHS wants it because they have several home computers and are looking for a CENTRALIZED store and backup solution for their files and they all have asked me if they can get a centralized e-mail and calendar solution. The novice single user is not going to purchase WHS when they can get True Image or Gost for a fraction of the cost just for backup... and they would not know what to do with a home server if they had one...

Useful applications that centralize storage and simplify life willl be what drives WHS sales in my opinion. Being able to log in and get access to your files is a great application and if we can log in using IMAP to a centralized e-mail and centralized home calendar function makes the WHS just that more of a MUST have application.

I do agree though that if MS does not do it someone else will... and then they can buy that company for 100x the cost of implementing it inhouse...

Gary

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 10:09 PM

Gary, I don't think Microsoft has any plans to build an email aggregator into Windows Home Server. Their market research told them that most of their target audience is very pleased with their current email solution (usually hosted, by their ISP, hotmail, or whoever). Why should they build a tool that most of their target market isn't interested in, when there are so many excellent third party tools for those few that do have a desire for this?

Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:41 AM

Moderator

Market research doesn't always provide the most accurate insight, especially when the research doesn't provide possible scenario's or alternatives that the participants may never have throught of. I was involved in doing market research for a previous company, and many, many of the questions that people were given never hinted or posed possible scenario's that would make life better...

Most times they are in the "How are you currently doing this", and "Are you satisfied with doing it your current way?". Of course, these will indicate that market research is generally happy with how things are done now since it doesn't give way to new possibilities.

Awhile ago, market research indicated that IMAP is not useful. Yet many business use this for traveling and remote office workers.

Awhile ago, market research indicated before that people had no use for storing pictures online. Look at the web now.

Awhile ago, market research indicated people didn't know/didn't feel they needed more space to store e-mails online. And now, how many provides have been stumbling to meet with GMail's storage amount?

Not trying to be argumentative, but just pointing out personal experience with relying just on what market research says. =)

Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:14 AM

Several posts have indicated that there are different third-party mail servers that can do what I and others were looking for. Can someone please give me the names of them?

I have spent all day plaing with SmarterMail, Softalk Mail Server, hMailServer, MDaemon, 602LAN Suite Groupware, Mercury, VPOP3, Ability Mail Server 2, and several others disqualified due to lack of features - yet none can do what people have requested.

All of these work great as POP3 collectors. Some are easier to configure then others. Honestly, not a hard task for the software to do.
All of these support IMAP, which is great for homes with multiple computers and family members "on the go".
All of these have webmail, which would tie in perfectly with the IMAP support.
All of these can be configured (in some aspect) as a SMTP relay, which enables them to pass local messages out to an ISP server to do the "grunt work" of finding the receipient. This makes the server "transparent" in sending e-mail for our uses, and doesn't involve MX records.

However, the problem comes when trying to actually send e-mail, and even more so when trying to send e-mail if your ISP SMTP server requires authentication. I have the luxery of trying two ISPs' SMTP servers; one requires authentication, one doesn't.

Long story short - I could get what I am looking for (see previous post), but I would be unable to send e-mail from the webmail interface. There goes "on the go" access to e-mail. OR, I would be able to send from webmail, but I wouldn't be able to e-mail anyone with the some domain as my e-mail address (i.e. if my e-mail was blah@att.com, I would never be able to e-mail any other people with att.com addresses). That's a party pooper.

Don't get me wrong - all of the above mail servers are excellent at being.. a mail server. I just feel strongly there is a missed opportunity that "connected" families [of non WHS "power users" like us] could really find beneficial, if they were made away of the possibilities. I'd be happy to write some real-life scenario's of where it could be beneficial; I just don't know who would be intersted in them at this point.

I'd love to write a plugin to do what I was looking for, but my programming is limited to Java - a no-go for something like this.

Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:35 AM

Gary,

Actually I don't work for Microsoft. We just have similar product vision I think.

I'm not saying Microsoft shouldn't implement this ever. I just think from a priority standpoint, there are other features that are going to have a bigger impact on the adoption of the product, and as such those should be worked on first. If you read all of the public reviews of WHS, enhanced media streaming is almost always universally mentioned. Tighter integration with the 360 is frequently mentioned. And from my perspective, when WHS corrupts files, it's *broken*. Fixing that has to be paramount to *any* new features that absolutely are not needed.

This is quite a good suggestion, but this forum is full of a lot of good suggestions, and I think quite a few of them will spur adoption of the WHS faster than an email aggregator / concentrator. Does that invalidate the usefulness of the email suggestion? Of course not. It just deprioritizes it.

I for one could use such a feature right now, if for nothing other than concentrating my Yahoo and two ISP email accounts.

By the time Microsoft gets to this, there will undoubtedly be a great 3rd party solution designed specifically for WHS. Then MS can implement this and put them out of business. ;-)

That being said, I do believe there is a market opportunity for a third party to build this. Once I finish my IR add-in, I'm going to look into it.

- Ryan

Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:02 AM

NotYou wrote:

Basically, it would work like this:

- On WHS, configure all POP3 accounts that everyone is using. This would be the same as just setting up an e-mail client, but would be done on WHS instead.

- On WHS, for each POP3 account setup above, specificy which WHS User would be the receipient for that e-mail.

- For each user, they would have their own IMAP account used to access their individual "pooled" e-mail from all POP3 accounts.

- Each user would configure their e-mail client with their WHS created IMAP settings, just as if they were setting up their POP3 e-mail.

Some thoughts/questions:

- How you've described the POP <> WHS User assignments is powerful (single-store concepts could be applied), but potentially confusing depending upon implementation. I would think that the message-state flags would have to be shared as well (ie has the message been read, replied to, etc). Otherwise if Mom replies to a message for directions from a family friend, then when Dad checks his email he won't see that it was replied-to, and may reply again. Shared message flags fix this; but it certainly is not standard IMAP implementation! Also, people aren't used to the concept of logging in and checking their email and seeing something read that they know they haven't read. So either way it's potentially confusing. Aggregating email is great, when you agregate many to one. When you aggregate many to many, you will always have this kind of issue.

- As for sending via SMTP, the WHS would act as an SMTP proxy, and could easily be smart enough to consult the From: and Reply-To: and choose the apropriately configured SMTP provider within the server. In other words, when configuring your superset of POP's, you would also configure your matching SMTP's if available. This way WHS would provide a always non-authenticating SMTP service to connected clients, but when you send mail, your From/Reply-To will drive which stored SMTP configuration is used, even potentially authenticating, and this would all be seamless. If you tried to send email with a From/Reply-To that WHS didnt't about (ie it couldn't map it to one of the provided SMTP configurations), it would reply with the standard unknown user SMTP error.

Basically, it would make WHS a POP3 collector, then provide it's own IMAP service. Simple. Then, to make it even better for family use:

- Webmail access

- Family calender, which is can be accessed both in webmail (like Google Calendar), and through the Outlook calendar.

- Duplication of the "IMAP stores" to prevent loss of e-mails (folder duplication)

- Storing of contacts

- Autoresponder (aka away message)

More thoughts / questions:

- What would the webmail access be useful for other than remote reading of mail? This makes your idea significantly much larger in scope. Alternatively, you could always just make the IMAP port open on your router, and then use whatever IMAP client remotely. Since IMAP is a server-authoritative protocol, and many people who prefer IMAP already have use lightweight IMAP clients, why not just use those? Inside the network, both Outlook and Outlook Express support IMAP of course.

- Calendar, contacts, etc. are all good ideas. I could see contacts integrated, but there are going to be a b'zillion WHS calendar implementations down the road...

- Redundancy of the IMAP stores is a no-brainer. I envision the stores would be more like a single-store database though; especilly if routing many to many. If routing many to one, a single-store would be overkill, as there would be no space savings.

- What about SPAM filtering / shared SPAM bucket? Or is it good enough to simply trust the filters at the ISP's.

- What about parental supervision or blocking? Any value-add that could be added here for kids email accounts?

Everybody's thoughts on these would be most appreciated!

- Ryan

Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:41 AM

Ryan,

I think you have the concept clearly defined… But by keeping it SIMPLE we can get it off the ground quickly and enhance it over time if the need exists.

I would think that the WHS Server would have its own antivirus and spam filtering… similar to what is provided by Outlook today. Anything above that should be left to the ISP’s or 3^rd party developers.

I don’t think you need to worry about shared message-state flags since each user could and should have their own e-mail account.

If you want a “shared family” e-mail you could have the server forward those messages to each individuals separate account with a forwarding tag line that says this message has been forwarded to all “family members” and that any replies should be sent to “all family” members.

As for client software the ideal solution is to be able to use existing Outlook or Outlook express to read the messages…. I believe that they are both IMAP aware, and support standard message flagging and syncing, and these probrams are already in most client machines. Also each client has its own antivirus already installed.

Regarding parental supervision assuming the parents had the children’s e-mail log-in credentials to the server they could monitor the e-mail accounts as well as their other files from anywhere.

Gary

Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:39 PM

Well, simple certainly implies no built in webmail client, and for a first version that is what it would need to be. However, it is tempting, especially if it was a *good* implementation that was failthful to the design principles of IMAP.

Yep, Outlook and Outlook Express support IMAP. But they aren't great IMAP clients. They are designed around local store, as would any client designed for both POP3 and IMAP support. This means you're going to have these local index files and data files which grow and grow and grow as people keep their email around (and if the clients are setup to remove from server, these are the only non-backed up copies). On every machine. A well-designed IMAP client assumes the server is authoritative (because an IMAP server is), and any local files are simply cached copies for performance. Just like Temporary Internet Files.

A good IMAP client will allow you, using the same client, to log in from machine X for your 100th time, and then go to machine Y and log in from there for your 1st time, and what you see should look exactly the same. If it doesn't pass that litmus test, it's a poor IMAP client, as local client state should never affect what you see. On top of this, it should also maintain near-real time synchronization. This is because good IMAP clients are server-centric, not client-centric, and unlike POP are typically always connected; not just during transfers. For a high speed home network with LAN reliability, this is ideal. Even 10mbit is like a 5 line highway for IMAP. The benefits of POP over IMAP disappear on a reliable LAN.

Given that we are talking about server-centric stores, then the idea of a thin IMAP client makes all the sense in the world. The two technologies mesh together very well. You would never need to worry about backup or loss of email at the client level, since authoritative copies are always on the server until purged...and the server has built-in redundancy to boot. No ost/pst files to keep backed up or to worry about getting corrupt (which, sadly does happen easily once they hit a few gb). Configuration and maintenance of each PC wrt email becomes nil, zilch, nada. Once you installed the add-in and configured the users on the server, you'd be done.

Maybe v2... ;-)

- Ryan

Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:24 PM

ryan.rogers wrote:

Not quite what I meant, but after re-reading what I wrote I can understand the confusion. There would be no "shared" e-mail addresses. Each individual would only ever see just THEIR e-mail, negating the need for shared flags and related items -- a "many to one" as you put it. Each indivual would have an IMAP account for them, which collects only their aggregated e-mail from their POP3 accounts. Then, inter-server e-mail (from MOM to SON) would just be deposited into MOMs account -- just like local mail works in an organization.

ryan.rogers wrote:

Exactly. Havn't seen anything do this, but would be an awesome "evolution" for this environment. Outlook 2007 does this now when you create a message and choose which account to use. Same deal here, and the benefit would be that as far as ISP's see, there is no "WHS Mail Server". No AUP issues, no relaying problems. E-mail sent from myemail@att.com would relay through ATT mail servers (as set by part 1 of my suggestion), and e-mail sent from myemail@earthlink.net would relay through EarthLink's servers, which would require SMTP authentication -- again all set from part 1).

ryan.rogers wrote:

More thoughts / questions:

Remote reading and sending of mail, both from other computers and mobile devices (Iphone, PocketPC, etc.). The benefit of webmail vs. IMAP client remotely shows itself when you are using a shared computer (neighbor, library, work) where you can't configure/install a remote client, as well as being able to use those mobile devices. Of course, if a person could configure an IMAP client remotely they could use that as well -- or, depening on AUP restrictions of their ISP they may not be able to open up the port in their firewall, therefor making the only option webmail.

ryan.rogers wrote:

- What about SPAM filtering / shared SPAM bucket? Or is it good enough to simply trust the filters at the ISP's.

I'd say this would be a "upgrade" or second release feature, since this can add to complexity and/or confusion. ISP's servers are pretty good at spam filtering, as well as local clients "junk filters". Yes, some like, some hate but truth be told it blocks most spam. Perhaps an integration with something like AVAST that is being released, and/or perhaps it has SpamAssasin or similar already built-in and configured.

Sound like you can see the value in something like this. I don't know how to program something like this, but I'd be willing to help out how I could with designing/blueprinting something like this

Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:12 PM

This thread is getting bigger and bigger and I have tried to follow it, but apologies if I am re-stating something said earlier. I had a requirement that sits quite closely to the suggestions in the last few posts. I have a working solution with Mercury/32 Mail Server that does the following:-

1/ Collects messages using POP3 from mailboxes at two ISP's using independent logins.

2/ Collects mail from a couple of Gmail accounts

3/ Checks the messages for obvious spam, offensive words, bad formatting etc.

4/ Sends suspect mail to a collective mailbox for subsequent manual checking

5/ Sorts other mail into mailboxes for individual family members

6/ Allows access from various mail clients using POP3 and/or IMAP

7/ Accepts mail from those clients, delivers local mail directly and passes internet mail to ISP smarthost

8/ Allows manually updated white lists and blacklists

9/ The application is free for non-commercial use

The downsides are:-

1/ No web client

2/ No web or console admin - need to RDP to WHS desktop for the little bit of ongoing admin that might be needed like setting up new mail accounts.

There will be a more detailed explanation on how to do this coming soon on the We Got Served site.

Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:15 PM

Cool, one less thing for me to worry about. ;-)

I'm swamped with porting my existing code anyway. I'll check out your article when it hits WGS.

I'm sure somebody will eventually write a add-in front-end for this.

Ryan

Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:11 PM

Hey Dave -

Basically any mail server out there will be able to do what you said, and I could give you settings on how to do it with many of them (see my previous posts).

If I may offer, I would suggest SmarterMail over Mercury/32 at this point. It can do 1-9 above in your list, offers shared contacts and calendars, as well as overcome the downsides:

Webmail - built in, "up to date" interface and easy to use. Downside is that no matter how you configure it, you will not be able to send mail through your ISP smarthost. No solution will do this for us in WHS without actually owning a domain and actually setting up a true e-mail server
Web Console - again, built in and is the default way to administer it.

The Free Version of SmarterMail is the same as the Enterprise version, except for only 1 domain / 10 users <-- perfect for WHS environment.

Take a look at it, and if you need help configuring it let me know.

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:52 AM

NotYou wrote:

If I may offer, I would suggest SmarterMail over Mercury/32 at this point. It can do 1-9 above in your list, offers shared contacts and calendars, as well as overcome the downsides:

Webmail - built in, "up to date" interface and easy to use. Downside is that no matter how you configure it, you will not be able to send mail through your ISP smarthost. No solution will do this for us in WHS without actually owning a domain and actually setting up a true e-mail server
Web Console - again, built in and is the default way to administer it.

I disagree, provided your ISP accepts mail on Port 25 (I haven't got around to investigating the ability or not of using alternate ports), then you simply put your ISP's SMTP server in SmarterMail as a Gateway server and it will route your outgoing mail out through your ISP.

Note there is confusing terminology here, what SmarterMail calls a Gateway server is known as a Smarthost in Microsoft Exchange. However a Smarthost in SmarterMail is a different thing altogether.

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:10 PM

Ahh, yes that would make sense.... but the problem is there are not enough options in SmarterMail to make it work:

Gateways in SmarterMail do not play with ISP servers requiring SMTP Authentication. This is just about all major ISP's in the USA
Even if your ISP doesn't require SMTP authentication, you run into another problem depending on what you configured your domain as:
- If your "local" domain is set the same as your ISP's (such as the case with using e-mail accounts provided by your ISP), then you will run into problems when you try to e-mail a non-local user on the same domain. For example, e-mailing johnny@myisp.com, when johnny isn't a user in Smartermail. SmarterMail will bounce the message with "no such user" since it won't pass the e-mail out the gateway
- If your "local" domain is set to something other then your ISP (such as setting it to "whs.local"), then when it contacts your ISP through the gateway, it will use "whs.local" as your domain of the sender. ISP's will reject this, since it doesn't match the domain they handle.

If you can figure out another way to configure SmarterMail, let me know. I'd love to make it work otherwise

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:19 AM

Good news for any who may have been interested in having a local e-mail server on WHS that gives the features I was looking for. I have found TWO solutions that work, with the first being Softalk Collaboration Suite. The bad news, though, is that it is $450 for 5 users, which is more then I would estimate most would want to pay. However, with it you can:

Use E-mail accounts for the each person in your family that are provisioned either by your ISP, or from your own domain you own
Use IMAP to access e-mail, letting you use any computer to see all your e-mail (no more "main" e-mail computer!)
Fully functional webmail application with the "look and feel" of Outlook
E-mail aggregator (collect e-mail from any POP3 account and put it into single mailbox).
Share calenders, contacts, and e-mail (if desired). For example, have a "family" calendar to track events, and a "family" contacts list with commonly used e-mail addresses accessible from everyone. Can set access rights for these as needed (view/edit/delete/etc)
Access the shared calendar, contacts, and e-mails in both webmail and Outlook natively.
Full access to "monitor" kids e-mail accounts from the webmail client without their knowledge, and without needed to know their password.
Access e-mail from mobile devices which can be configured to check an IMAP account (i.e. IPhone, PocketPC, etc.). Cannot access calendar or contacts though.
Can be setup to use Anti-virus and Spam filters on the server to remove bad e-mails before accessing
Transparent to your ISP
Pitfall: When you send an e-mail, it will always come from your "main" e-mail account, no matter to what e-mail account it was originlly sent to (if your using multiple e-mail accounts).

No other mail server I have found makes everything work together nicely, and work with an ISP, and work without them knowing. The setup is not for the average WHS person, but not as difficult as setting up a real e-mail server.

The second solution is by using Google Apps for your domain. Don't know why I didn't think of it before, and the price is just the cost of registering your own domain. There are some downfalls compared to Softalk:

Only works with your own domain. However, e-mail accounts from your ISP can be part of the aggregator
E-Mail aggregator checks for e-mail at the whim of Google, which seams to be about once an hour.
Shared calendar can only be viewed in outlook, not edited. (may possibly be overcome with third party tools)
Shared contacts and shared e-mail not available
Monitoring kids e-mail not as easy -- would actually need their password.
Designed to work with mobile phones more then Softalk -- can see both e-mail and calendar, and looks pretty in IPhone =)
Overcomes Pitfall above when sending e-mail --> can come from any e-mail address you have

I havn't put together any instructions on how to do this, but if there are people interested I can do so.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:59 AM

I like SmarterMail too.... but I still can't figure out how to get IMAP to work.... on the server I've got the domain set as myserver.homeserver.com and somewhere I setup a host name of mail.myserver.homeserver.com.... so what do I need to set it as on the Outlook end? I've tried both of the ones mentioned before and also the IP address of my server and Outlook IMAP will never connect.....

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:25 AM

Padgetti wrote:

IMAP is "on" so long as the SmarterMail server is running. You can check this under the "Manage" tab on the admin interface.

On Outlook, you would configure a new e-mail account. In the settings, configure the mail type as IMAP, and the incoming and outgoing as the IP address of your WHS machine (it'll be a local address -- something like 192.168.1.5). Make sure your WHS server is setup to have a static IP address as well.

Regardless of the above, I don't think you've got SmarterMail setup correctly. "myserver.homeserver.com" should not be anywhere, as it's not really a domain. *.homeserver.com also doesn't give out e-mail addresses, so there's no point in using it in your setting (unless you're trying to create "fake" e-mail addresses). There's also no need for a host name unless your running multiple mail servers. What exactly are you trying to have SmarterMail do for you?

Saturday, January 26, 2008 4:26 AM

Yeah the problem with SCS is that is it's priced far too high for this market.

What is really needed is a tightly integrated WHS-only version with 5 licenses for $149 or 10 licesnes for $199.

They would clean up.

The average WHS user who wants these email features isn't going to pay $450; especially if they aren't easy to use and tightly integrated. It needs to "feel" like the other WHS features, and it needs to cost no more than 1/3 of the price of an entry level WHS device.

Ryan

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:20 PM

I’m moderately tech savvy…and think that an exchange like feature would be great. I’m considering purchasing WHS for all the features but largly due to remote access. I could have to pay to have exchange service to have outlook web, having it on a home server would be a big benefit to me.

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:11 PM

I just realized something. I'm getting ready to conduct a small bit of survey-based market research among owners of products from my whole-house-controller line now anyway, so I'm going to add a few questions on email server / aggregator support. It won't be exceedingly useful outside of my niche market, but I'll report a summary of my findings in a few weeks, as it sounds like some folks on this thread my be interested.

Ryan

Sunday, January 27, 2008 3:00 PM

Atomusk wrote:

I think that the mail feature is WAY less important for most people than the Media center feature.

I have to state my agreement on that point. Let's get the features we have working a little better before we worry about adding more.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:18 PM

Me also.

I would prefer to have the basic functionality working fully, with any extra being things like 'built-in' tools to repair backup/file errors.

One extra possibility would be an extended SDK, which could provide a greater range of add-ins and extensions. We are already beginning to see various third-party developers providing things like email funtionality and shared calendars.

Colin

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:31 PM

Can I just throw in my 10P worth here I think considering hotmail.com and things like msn.com exists why can there be an add-in to WHS to download e-mails from that domain? then from there distribute to individual computers attached to the home server but also adding web access so that the account is more secure from your personal home server with that and the ability to backup those e-mail account you would no longer have a set type of e-mail space like 5gig from hotmail from what I can see this is all old technology anyway just need to be spruced up and some software adjustments to be made? I relies not everyone will get their names as e-mails i.e. John.Smith@hotmail.co.uk but we already face that problem with online e-mail accounts anyway. But if Microsoft were just hosting for the fact of distributing to a certain homeserver.com account then it should be no real problem have a sort of post office type software distributing to mail accounts on the server to access from the remote access connector. Surely that is easy in put together?

Thursday, March 20, 2008 12:34 PM

A couple of months ago I thought we were getting real close... there were two software packages being talked about as a solution to this problem but we have not heard anything since then. Has anyone gotten smarter mail or anything else to work on WHS?

Gar7

Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:27 PM

I have had ShareMail Pro running on my Homeserver for the past 6 months with no problems. Great piece of software and free too.

Thanks

TLE

Thursday, March 20, 2008 2:52 PM

Free??? Sure doesn't look like it from what I saw on lavasoftware.net. Is there another ShareMail?

Not that it would help me anyway: I absolutely have to have webmail, and I don't want to use Squirrelmail anymore. I'm currently looking at Ability Mail Server. It's not free, but it does work, it has webmail, and it works through my ISP's SMTP server.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:25 PM

There are two versions. Sharemail and Sharemail Pro.

Sharemail from what I remember only allows 1 domain, where as Sharemail Pro allows multiple domains. The free version of Sharemail Pro restricts you to 5 mailbox's. I think it includes a webmail, its just somthing that I don't use.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:48 PM

thanks for the reply. I had a closer look (went to the download page) and I see that the "eval" version supports 5 mailboxes. I guess that's what you're talking about. Sort of wierd how they phrase it. Anyway, if you've been using it for 6 months I guess it has no expiry date. Still don't see anything about webmail, but I'm going to look closer for that since it does seem to be free.

Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:05 PM

I want to throw another product into the mire, and that is MailEnable. The STD version is free and you can configure a number of pop3 boxes and post offices for use. The pro version comes with webmail although costly as does the enterprise version. The latter I have used with some big clients successfully, and the former on the WHS server with no problems at all..

Tuesday, November 4, 2008 12:28 PM

Try DeskNow (http://www.desknow.com) it's a mail and calander collaboration soloution, it doesn't work with outlook but it does have web access that looks likes the exchange web interface. The Basic edition is free, which contains everything that home users should need, with little administration required.

Proposed as answer by Christian1071 Monday, December 22, 2008 4:43 AM

Monday, December 22, 2008 4:42 AM

I am using Ability Mail Server and have been for about a year on WHS. It is a bit pricy to get the 25 user/5 domain version ~$80 US I think. Works great, allows multiple POP3 retreivals from other mail services, i.e. Yahoo, etc. so that you can dump them all into your mail box. Users can setup their own accounts in addition to the ones setup on the server itself. Has a Web Front end and also supports IMAP.

Only issue I had is with sending email to some mail servers that dont allow dynamic IP's to send to them. You can setup to use a relay account or service.

It is a little pricy but the big advantage to me is the webmail capability with the multiple pop3 retrevals to that I can get to all of my email using a web interface.

Monday, December 29, 2008 6:48 PM

Answered by:

E-mail!!!

Question

Answers

All replies