locked
What? No Email? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Ok, so I'm mildly intersted in the features WHS offesr, most notably the consolidated auto backup.  However, there is one piece that any good server should support and that's email!  Wouldn't the sky look a bit more bluer tomorrow if this OS could consolidate all our verious emails from differing sources and send them to Outlook via WHS?
    Saturday, April 14, 2007 5:20 AM

Answers

  • There have been a dozen or more threads asking for email server support. While it's possible that it will be added to a future version of the product, Microsoft's market research shows that the vast majority of the target audience for WHS is very satisfied with their current hosted solution. In addition, Microsoft sells a solution today that will allow you to host email for up to 75 people. It's called Small Business Server. Finally, adding features will add to the cost (and delay the shipping date) of the final product. How much is an included email server worth to you?
    Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:17 PM
    Moderator

All replies

  • There have been a dozen or more threads asking for email server support. While it's possible that it will be added to a future version of the product, Microsoft's market research shows that the vast majority of the target audience for WHS is very satisfied with their current hosted solution. In addition, Microsoft sells a solution today that will allow you to host email for up to 75 people. It's called Small Business Server. Finally, adding features will add to the cost (and delay the shipping date) of the final product. How much is an included email server worth to you?
    Saturday, April 14, 2007 12:17 PM
    Moderator
  • Ken, thanks for the insight.  I was hoping the WHS would cost less than the $600 MS charges for the SBS solution.  I really don't need to host email for 75 people, just 5 or 6, ten max.  In short, I was hoping WHS would be SBS "light".  As far as waiting for deployment of the final product, I'm ok with the wait, if the product meets my expectations.
    Saturday, April 14, 2007 1:10 PM
  • Totally agree. Most home-users would benefit from a mail-server that could handle up to 10 accounts max. Having to install a "professional product" like SBS (and pay for it) is a waste for most home-users.......
    Friday, June 29, 2007 11:08 AM
  •  Sideburn wrote:
    Totally agree. Most home-users would benefit from a mail-server that could handle up to 10 accounts max. Having to install a "professional product" like SBS (and pay for it) is a waste for most home-users.......

     

    How, exactly, would most Home users benefit from a self maintained mail server?  Since the far majority of your Home users don't even know what SMTP or POP3 are, let alone how to setup or maintain a mailserver.  In addition, this would require the home user install, setup and maintain some form of SPAM filter for this server.  Finally, the home user would have to install some form of security, to prevent having his server taken over as a spam-mailer.

     

    All of those additional tasks, which the Home user isn't capable of doing for the most part, so they can get 10 mailboxes?  When they've already got 10 mailboxes off their hosted solution that provides all of that?

     

    What exactly is the benefit of having MORE work, for at BEST the same level of service?

     

    Just because the techie enthusiasts involved in the Beta program want this ability, doesn't mean that the average Home user does, or even should have it.

    Friday, June 29, 2007 2:23 PM
  • I gotta agree with Prelector.  The average home user doesn't need this, as most of the people that will use this have 10+ email accounts through their ISP, that already does some spam-blocking.

     

    I know about POP3 and SMTP and I still have trouble setting up, installing a mail server, and then the headache of ISP rules regarding servers, etc. port forwarding around the router, spam filtering, virus scanning, enhanced security risk as a target for the script kiddies... etc.

     

    No thanks on the email server for me.

    Friday, June 29, 2007 4:19 PM
  • I am with Prelector  and jstueve here.

    My best.
    Friday, June 29, 2007 5:18 PM
  • I agree too, an email server (like AD) is more than most users need, however WHS is also geared towards the entusiast so it could be an option that nobody would see unless activated. Personally, I'd never use anyting but FreeBSD/sendmail for home email. The other problem with addign any email server, is that some people will whine if it's not "exchangish" so they'd save themselves headaches by leaving it out.

     

    Friday, June 29, 2007 5:44 PM
  • He has a point
    most home users have very sporadic e-mail habits
    consolidating all web-based e-mails and pop-3 email accounts such as from the ISP,
    into one interface is a great idea
    but isn't there a way to integrate web-based e-mail services into office 07 outlook
    but why
    I personally think the interface is over-crowded
    to much at one time
    keep it simple stupid

    other then that i like the test account features button and the new configuration wizard which is a whole lot better then going to tools, servers and yeah




    Friday, June 29, 2007 6:01 PM
  • I don't think the target market really want / need e-mail, if you do why not add something like this http://www.kerio.co.uk/kms_price.html

     

     

    Gordon

    Friday, June 29, 2007 6:09 PM
  • I am currently running Exchange on SBS at home and have run my own e-mail server for my domain for over 10 years.  SPAM is driving me crazy.  What a pain in the neck managing a small e-mail server has become!  Why would the average home user want this headache?

     

    I have now reached the point where I am looking to "outsource" my home e-mail (and I am willing to pay up to $50/yr per account) just so that someone else has to manage the mail server and the SPAM problem.  Only two things are stopping me:  (1) I want to continue using Outlook and (2) I want to continue to sync my PocketPC phone over the Internet like I can with my Exchange server.  Neither GMail nor Windows Live for Domains can do both of these things.  Any ideas?

     

    Scott

    Sunday, July 1, 2007 8:10 PM
  • Have a look at people like http://4smartphone.net/Default.aspx and http://www.mail2web.com/

     

     

    Gordon

    Sunday, July 1, 2007 8:18 PM
  • We again get into the arguement as to what "we" want as to what  the target market needs.,

    We want is a proper home server on the cheap with AD/email/security options etc.

    What the home user (wants/needs).is backup/more security/office storage/NAS solutions/AV that works without much or any user intervention.

    can't satisfy both markets, but the tester base can do their part in settimg up a system that will benefit the community as a whole. This is what we as beta testers should be looking towards. It's called altruism and what I thought we were signing up for.
    Sunday, July 1, 2007 10:08 PM
  •  RobAnyone wrote:
    We again get into the arguement as to what "we" want as to what the target market needs.,

    We want is a proper home server on the cheap with AD/email/security options etc.



    The target market consists of 2 personas; Peter and Sam. Peter is semi-computer literate and Sam is a geek. WHS has to work with both and it's not designed to be business class. If it had AD support and an email/web server then they'd sell a LOT less business licenses because people would integrate WHS in the office too.

    Speak for yourself. I am Sam and I don't want all that mess for my WHS either. Like I said, I have web/email on FreeBSD. If you really want a win32 email server, there are 3rd party solutions, like sendmail. AD will never be supported for WHS because it'll be abused by businesses and this is meant for home use, hence the workgroup support only. As for security, it has password policy and lockout, AD is overblown for most home use.

    Hope that helps...

    Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:14 PM
  • @ScottAinsworth: I'm using VPOP3 with Exchange, so I arguably get best of both. VPOP3 can pick up from any pop3 mailbox (it collects from several accounts and consolidates them as required), so that includes gMail, and this is either accessible via in in-built web interface, or by any pop3 client. Or you can forward it to Exchange, with a connector set up to send outgoing back via the vpop3 server. (I only want to use Exchange for my business account, so I actually pick that up from Outlook and that gets synced back to the server.) So I can sync my pocket PC and access my mail from any machine.

     

    I subscribe to their anti-spam filter service and that catches a lot of stuff, plus it has fully customisable white list/black list etc etc. Inexpensive and well worth a look: www.vpop3.co.uk

    Sunday, July 1, 2007 11:17 PM
  • Many of you have made good points about the difficulties of running a mail server at home. The same things could probably be said about running all types of servers: Unless you know what to do, it will not be a walk in the park. And isn't the point of a "home server" that the "stuff" that the average user would find difficult, is made easy through automated setups and easy administration? How come it's so much more difficult doing this when it comes to a mail-server?

     

    If the statement: "If you really want a win32 email server, there are 3rd party solutions, like sendmail" is relevant, why should MS make a home server at all? There are also other solutions for every feature in WHS available as we speak.

     

    MS can easily incorporate a mail server into WHS. They can automate setup and make admnistrating spam-filters as easy as updating your anti-virus. That's obviously not the issue. I think this has more to do with selling SBS instead of WHS.................. 

     

    -In my humble opinionSmile

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007 8:20 AM
  • First, the difficulties of running a home email server IS the reason not to include it in the base home server product.  Running a home email server opens a whole bunch of security holes, and complexities.  Exhange Server is great, but it isn't the easiest peice of software to manage, and the level of complexity isn't there.  To add that to WHS, just amps the price up, and one of the key features is, low prices appliances without a lot of management required.  An email server requires a LOT of management.

     

    There are also other solutions for every feature in WHS available as we speak.

    Well yeah, kinda.  Automating backups is a can do thing, I never did (20+ years in IT) for my home network.  Only in the last few years have the prices for centralized storage and the feature set of some linux appliactions has it reached the point of doing it.  And the simplicity of SIS is way beyond what a Ubuntu server can accomplish.  RAID features have been around for years, but its almost always required a level of complexity beyond a normal home user, and it required matched disks which isn't always feasible when adding another disk to the pool.  So while your comment that there are solutions available, they aren't nearly as simple and idiot proof as thouse that WHS is advancing.

     

    MS can easily incorporate a mail server into WHS. They can automate setup and make admnistrating spam-filters as easy as updating your anti-virus. That's obviously not the issue. I think this has more to do with selling SBS instead of WHS.

    Well, yeah.  Sure.  There is a product that does all these other bells&whistles.  And if you want the bells and whistles then pay for the GREATLY discounted SBS package.  Compare that to full versions of all the stuff you're talking about and you'll still see the bargin in the package.

     

    Second, the market research is that home users are happy with their email from their ISP, and don't want to centralize to a home server.  There are exceptions, and for those they can weigh the cost-benefit of running full blown SBS, or grabbing WHS and putting up a open-source solution to run on their home built WHS box. 

     

    What you really want is a further discounted SBS, which frankly isn't a bad idea, but it isn't the same product, or market as what WHS is advancing.

     

    Cheers,

     

    Jon.

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007 4:26 PM
  •  Sideburn wrote:

    If the statement: "If you really want a win32 email server, there are 3rd party solutions, like sendmail" is relevant, why should MS make a home server at all? There are also other solutions for every feature in WHS available as we speak.

    MS can easily incorporate a mail server into WHS. They can automate setup and make admnistrating spam-filters as easy as updating your anti-virus. That's obviously not the issue. I think this has more to do with selling SBS instead of WHS..................

    -In my humble opinion


    Because WHS was never intended to be a COMPLETE server solution, it was meant to provide specific services.

    It wouldn't be as easy as you imagine. However, since WHS is built on Win2k3 SBS, it *has* a mail server, it's just not installed.

    From the Control Panel - Add or Remove Programs - Add/Remove Windows Components - Click on Internet Information Services (IIS) and click Details - Select the SMTP Service and Click OK.

    SMTP is not needed by the average user or even the average geek. It opens security issues and it's not easy enough to administer for most users. If your SMTP is not properly configured you will be used as a SPAM relay and your IP will get blacklisted by many RBLs. WHS should not include SMTP but almost all options are available to those "geek enough."

    Good luck...

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007 6:09 PM
  • Every windows server have build-in network services, (email server as well in this case) since the day of NT4 if recall it.

    But to run that is not a good idea for home link and home hardware setup.

    We come to low price from many data center to host your dedi server, or even simple shell and you can host your services there, as email here with better redundant uptime and protection.

    My best.

    Tuesday, July 3, 2007 7:12 PM
  • With regards to an email server . . .

     

    It is not that I am looking for an email server per se, but I want two things:

    1.  to have my email messages stored locally, not on the web; and
    2. To be able to access email from any machine in the house

    In my house, we have 3 people, 2 desktops and 1 laptop, plus the WHS.  Our main outlook file is on the office desktop.  If I am on any computer, I would like to be able to access my outlook folders, including mail, contacts and calendar.  Each machine has a copy of Office on it.  Now, if the outlook.pst folder were available over the network without corruption, I would be fine, but it isn't.  I don't really want a whole email server, just the ability to access the file over the network.  It seems a simple enough request.

     

    MB

    Sunday, July 22, 2007 10:34 PM
  •  mbeloff wrote:

    With regards to an email server . . .

    It is not that I am looking for an email server per se, but I want two things:

    1. to have my email messages stored locally, not on the web; and
    2. To be able to access email from any machine in the house

    In my house, we have 3 people, 2 desktops and 1 laptop, plus the WHS. Our main outlook file is on the office desktop. If I am on any computer, I would like to be able to access my outlook folders, including mail, contacts and calendar. Each machine has a copy of Office on it. Now, if the outlook.pst folder were available over the network without corruption, I would be fine, but it isn't. I don't really want a whole email server, just the ability to access the file over the network. It seems a simple enough request.

    MB


    First: WHS isn't an office solution, it's a home solution.
    Second: the problem with storing a .PST file on network shares is an MS Office problem not a WHS problem.


    Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:33 PM
  •  mbeloff wrote:

    With regards to an email server . . .

     

    It is not that I am looking for an email server per se, but I want two things:

    1.  to have my email messages stored locally, not on the web; and
    2. To be able to access email from any machine in the house

    In my house, we have 3 people, 2 desktops and 1 laptop, plus the WHS.  Our main outlook file is on the office desktop.  If I am on any computer, I would like to be able to access my outlook folders, including mail, contacts and calendar.  Each machine has a copy of Office on it.  Now, if the outlook.pst folder were available over the network without corruption, I would be fine, but it isn't.  I don't really want a whole email server, just the ability to access the file over the network.  It seems a simple enough request.

     

    MB

     

    It has been stated on other threads that  MS will  not implement Exchange on WHS . Maybe we are all wrong and RTM has a solution.

     

    Anyway you can purchase your own Domain with email and use HMailserver (http://hmailserver.com)  cannot remember who suggested this (to lazy to sceach) but it should work.. Remember that your ISP might block your ability to run a mailserver.  You will need Port 25  amd 110 .

     

     If you want another suggestion on this topic post, again and I will find the ideas I  got from other threads - I will want to give the credit for them to the right person .

     

    Have fun

     

    Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:49 PM
  •  SME wrote:
     mbeloff wrote:

    With regards to an email server . . .

    It is not that I am looking for an email server per se, but I want two things:

    1. to have my email messages stored locally, not on the web; and
    2. To be able to access email from any machine in the house

    In my house, we have 3 people, 2 desktops and 1 laptop, plus the WHS. Our main outlook file is on the office desktop. If I am on any computer, I would like to be able to access my outlook folders, including mail, contacts and calendar. Each machine has a copy of Office on it. Now, if the outlook.pst folder were available over the network without corruption, I would be fine, but it isn't. I don't really want a whole email server, just the ability to access the file over the network. It seems a simple enough request.

    MB


    First: WHS isn't an office solution, it's a home solution.
    Second: the problem with storing a .PST file on network shares is an MS Office problem not a WHS problem.


     

    I go with mbeloff. I don't care about a mail server, but I hate redundancies and at the moment I have about 2 GB of redundancies (I download the emails on each of our three machines), just because PST-Files can't be shared. I also don't care if that's a problem with the WHS or with MS Office. It just needs to be solved. And by the way, flexible email availability has nothing to do with office or home use (or why else is everybody so keen on web mail?).

     

    Sorry if this sounds unfriendly. It's not meant that way, it's just a little late (nearly 12 p.m.) and I don't see any helpful thought in sme's quotation. Have a good night anyway!

    Thursday, October 11, 2007 9:25 PM
  • PST files are not supported on a network, see

    http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1273349&SiteID=50

    The problem is not with WHS, and the team here can't help, however much they may sympathise.

     

    Everybody is keen on webmail /because/ it's so flexible! I have gMail pickup a couple of accounts I used to collect with Outlook Express and I can now read them on any machine at home, onsite, on holiday or at my girlfriend's place. That's pretty flexible Smile

     

    Remember that even if you have the .pst stored on three machines, WHS only stores each unique cluster once so you won't be backing up that much data.

    Friday, October 12, 2007 12:18 AM
  •  mbeloff wrote:

    With regards to an email server . . .

     

    It is not that I am looking for an email server per se, but I want two things:

    1.  to have my email messages stored locally, not on the web; and
    2. To be able to access email from any machine in the house

    In my house, we have 3 people, 2 desktops and 1 laptop, plus the WHS.  Our main outlook file is on the office desktop.  If I am on any computer, I would like to be able to access my outlook folders, including mail, contacts and calendar.  Each machine has a copy of Office on it.  Now, if the outlook.pst folder were available over the network without corruption, I would be fine, but it isn't.  I don't really want a whole email server, just the ability to access the file over the network.  It seems a simple enough request.

     

    MB

     

    If I could add some clarification and comments...

     

    What the the quoted post is talking about is not a mail server that would receive SMTP traffic from the internet and store in local mailboxes. Poster mbeloff is referring to central storage of email that a desktop email client pulls down from the oft-mentioned internet email systems (via POP3, typically). Since Outlook .pst files cannot be stored on any network (well, it's unsupported, and the issues with doing so are known), mbeloff is asking for a server-side storage solution in WHS that is compatible with Outlook (at minimum) and can centralize email storage.

     

    An integrated IMAP server would handle this nicely, so long as the storage used by the IMAP server is Drive Extender-friendly, except that MS would need to provide a connector for Outlook that would facilitate storage of contatcts, calendars, etc. on the IMAP server. (Such connectors exist currently; MS could either develop one in-house or *ahem* buy one.)

     

    Of course, such a solution would compete heavily with Exchange on SBS for SOHOs...

     

    (Yes, I know WHS is not intended as a SOHO product. If you think that SOHOs, especially smaller ones, aren't going to use WHS anyway, think again; automatic backup in particular is a killer feature. If MS wants to keep selling SBS to smaller SOHOs, they need to integrate the features of WHS into the next SBS release.)

    Friday, October 12, 2007 11:54 AM
  •  Peregrine007 wrote:

    What the quoted post is talking about is not a mail server that would receive SMTP traffic from the internet and store in local mailboxes. Poster mbeloff is referring to central storage of email that a desktop email client pulls down from the oft-mentioned internet email systems (via POP3, typically). Since Outlook .pst files cannot be stored on any network (well, it's unsupported, and the issues with doing so are known), mbeloff is asking for a server-side storage solution in WHS that is compatible with Outlook (at minimum) and can centralize email storage.

     

    An integrated IMAP server would handle this nicely, so long as the storage used by the IMAP server is Drive Extender-friendly, except that MS would need to provide a connector for Outlook that would facilitate storage of contatcts, calendars, etc. on the IMAP server. (Such connectors exist currently; MS could either develop one in-house or *ahem* buy one.)

     

    That's exactly what I am looking for and I even found it with AVM Ken! 4. The killer arguments against it are the lack of file server functionality, backup (where WHS is completely without competition!) and remote control/usage. So IMO the absolutely perfect solution would be a crossover under MS Label, as the WHS brings along more of the key features.

     

    From a matter of fact point of view I too see massive danger to SBS, if WHS adopts key features such as centralised mail (no matter of used technology). So I am  affraid the pesimists among us are right. It will very likely stay third party solution.

    Friday, October 12, 2007 8:50 PM
  •  Crash2975 wrote:

     PST files are not supported on a network, see

    http://forums.microsoft.com/WindowsHomeServer/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1273349&SiteID=50

    The problem is not with WHS, and the team here can't help, however much they may sympathise.

     

    I know, I learnt it the hard way (lost about 4 years of emails and had no backup).

     

     Crash2975 wrote:

    Everybody is keen on webmail /because/ it's so flexible! I have gMail pickup a couple of accounts I used to collect with Outlook Express and I can now read them on any machine at home, onsite, on holiday or at my girlfriend's place. That's pretty flexible

     

    1. The problem with webmail accounts, especially gmail, is their idea of privacy, which means it practically does not exist (take a look at: http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html).

    2. I don't really need to read my mails anywhere on the planet as long as this means outside my house. Inside I don't want to be bound to one special PC.

     

     Crash2975 wrote:

    Remember that even if you have the .pst stored on three machines, WHS only stores each unique cluster once so you won't be backing up that much data.

     

    You're right, the new backup really is a great benefit. Only I was not referring to the storage used backing my emails up. I was talking about the life data. If I want to make sure, that I have all my correspondence on all of my PCs, I have to send every mail I write to myself too (in CC/BCC). Otherwise in case of research I have to remember which Computer I was using originally. I'm sure you will admit, that this is not really practical.

    Friday, October 12, 2007 9:12 PM
  • I know, I learnt it the hard way (lost about 4 years of emails and had no backup).
    Eeek!

    If I want to make sure, that I have all my correspondence on all of my PCs, I have to send every mail I write to myself too (in CC/BCC). Otherwise in case of research I have to remember which Computer I was using originally. I'm sure you will admit, that this is not really practical.
    You may wish to consider one of the inexpensive mail server options, such as VPOP3 of which I am a fan and satisfied user. This collects mail from any POP3 (and other) mailboxes and can consolidate mail accounts if required. You can then either use Outlook to collect your mail from there or use its own web mail interface. To run this on WHS, especially with the volume of mail you're describing, you'd really need a drive outside the pool in order to not exhaust free space on C. (Mine is running on a server on my network.)

    Saturday, October 13, 2007 9:07 PM
  • Can you tell me, please, what is POP3 and all that other stuff? I can't send anyone an email from this

    Windows Home Server.

     

    Could you help, please?

     

    Jeanine

     

    write to: jlart10295@aol.com

     

    Saturday, June 28, 2008 3:38 AM
  • Jeanine,

    You cannot use the server to write and read emails, it is a server. If you don't understand exactly what you need to do, it really isn't an easy thing to get running, as you really should have a mastery of the basics.

    If you go to the web sites of a couple of the products mentioned, they will have instructions and manuals for you to read. Then you need to decide if that's the method you want to implement.

     

    However, if you don't even know what POP3 etc entails, maybe you should start here, with the basics.

     

    Colin

    Saturday, June 28, 2008 12:25 PM