Conference 7.286::digital

    Check out the CCS NT Server Web Page at:
    
    	http://www-ccs.wro.dec.com/NT/
    
    There's plenty of information there.
    
    Jim C.
    
    

Kam,

	Please see http://www-ccs.wro.dec.com/NT/ for more information.
	Exchange Servers, WINS servers, DIGITALx domain servers are all
	up and running. Site specific access is a question for the CCS
	folks, but they ARE doing a good job on this. It's actually
	all starting to come together. (Thanks in part to people like 
	Bob Read, Mark Graceffa, and Glenn Doten)

	There is a way to send feedback/questions on the homepage.

							mike

    For the MS exchange request form look in Netscape CCS site.
    http://www.imc.das.dec.com/ccs/publications/1405.htm - see section
    2.9.2.2
    

    I looked over there and does this mean that we're moving to a
    centralize Mail structure like DECmail and ALL-IN-1 and that we CAN'T
    run our own Windows NT, MS-Exchange, and Domain environments locally?
    
    	Regards,

	RE: .4

	Geez.. Try asking the CCS folks.. They are pretty accomodating.

							mike

    RE: .4
    
    No, I don't think that's what it means.
    
    True, if you want to participate in the CCS model of Exchange mail,
    then that's how to do it.  These are simply mail servers and have
    nothing to do with what you do on NT or in your domain, etc..etc..
    
    Even with Y'all-in-1, no one ever forced anyone to use it.  Personally,
    I *like* how CCS rolled out Exchange...And I'm an ex-CCS employee. :-)
    Not exactly ready to give up VMSmail, but it's really been pretty good.
    
    Now, if they can only straighten out our TCP/IP implementation...
    :-)

    BTW Nobody outside CCS can use these services.

    re: .7
    
    Not true. Not sure of your particular circumstance but the
    CCS implementation isn't exclusive to CCS. Yes, it may have
    been at one time while there was a pilot running.
    
    Jim C.
    

Anyone can use the CSS services but there is a cross charge to your
cost center.  For example,  an MS-Exchange account is $30/month with
20 MB of storage.

Garry

    I am in the process of setting up a DIGITAL1 domain account and
    EXCHANGE mail account. I have yet to set up RAS access but am in the
    process of adding access through our local NT domain.
    
    First, if you are in an NT domain you better understand NT VERY WELL or
    ypu need someone that does available. The browsing and WINS
    requirements are only mentioned in the instructions and the CCS home
    page offers limited assistance. It can be done but not with the same
    level of skill that is required to set up a domain by itself. Do you
    know who your local browse master is and how to configure it?
    
    Second, if you have applied for the CCS account and use Sales WorkBench
    you are about to be introduced to RAS, AltaVista Tunnel and domain
    accounts. I have had to ask for some information and the support
    resources are not in place for the totally novice user. The individual
    I spoke with was helpful but was apparently the ONLY resource familiar
    with this process.
    
    Bottom line is it works and I like it. This is nice since I won't have
    a choice soon. BUT---if you can't install and configure the networking
    components on your desktop of choice and/or if downtime on your desktop
    is an issue, line up your help resources before you start.

All those nice CCS services are NOT available in Europe. period.
Except to a very specific population.

	Vincent

I have my digital1 domain account but also have a dsnlink domain on
our private test server. Not to mention my unix and VMS mail. I think 
my head hurts just trying to understand how to coordinate all these 
different beasts. I can't imagine how our customers are dealing with
this whole issue.

Is it possible for me to login to one domain and still access the other?
I haven't been able to figure out how. Is that something a person at the
server end has to authorize? liesl

	Have your local domain trust the DIGITAL1 domain. Then set up
	your ownership and file protections on your local domain to use
	the DIGITAL1 account you have. Also, add your DIGITAL1 account to
	whatever groups you need on your local domain. (admin, etc..)

	Now, you can delete your local domain account and only use the
	DIGITAL1 domain account.

	The goal is to only use one Windows NT domain account. DIGITAL1
	is set up for that. You just need to let your local domain know
	that.

	Trusts are set up with CCS. See the web page. They will send
	you an ok and a trust password to use. You'll want to start using
	the Corporate WINS servers for name resolution first. This will
	require a reboot. After the reboot, you can establish the trust
	with DIGITAL1 using the password CCS gave you. From there on out,
	use DIGITAL1 for authorization.

	I'm going thru all this now.

							mike

Mike, thanks, I even think I understand it now. liesl

    Like .0 I would also like to know the status of any corporate-wide
    MS-Exchange progam, but I've been looking for general information on
    the program. The info at the CCS NT home page is basically how CCS is
    implementing NT and Exchange for individuals and groups that choose to
    use them. 

    Apologies to CCS if I just missed the information, but I'd appreciate
    other noters posting pointers to any on-line program plans and status
    reports.

    I have an Exchange account because I was encouraged to get one; but, so
    far, why I would choose to have one is not clear. Most of my mail is
    well implemented in simple VMSmail. I do not use ALL-IN-1.

    - Bob

    Re .0 & .15
    Bit of a chicken and egg situation.
    
    If you have an Exchange account check the public folders area.  Under
    Connectivity and Communication Services and Global Back Office NT
    Program are lots of docs describing the objectives, plans and roll-out
    schedules.
    
    Only point I would make is that when dialled in from home, performance
    of All-in-1 and VMSmail character cell far exceeds that of Exchange. 
    Now if we had the MS Exchange Server located in the Vancouver office
    things would be different.  One has to remember that the performance of
    the network infrastructure has a major impact.  When dialled in with a
    local server my 28.8Kbps connection is for my use only.  When that
    server is located remotely (in my case I think it's MRO) I have to
    share the pipe within everyone in Canada.
    
    	Owen.
    	(I'm not in CCS but found stuff there)

    re: -1  Owen, there is a server in KAO, I wonder if you wouldn't be
           better off using that one? And, I'm pretty sure that a server
           is being sent to CGO within a short time, I'll try to find out
           the date and let you know. That would improve things in the west
           of Canada significantly?
    
    Brian, CCS in KAO

    Speaking of Exchange..... is there any "hard copy", "readable"
    documentation that a non-technical person such as myself might be
    privvy to.  I've got Exchange up on my PC at my office, but don't have
    a printer and only have 8 mg memory which makes viewing any large
    document difficult.....
    
    Any ideas......HELP!!!!
    
    Toodles......JPs
    

    This is what someone indicated for a place for documentation:
    
 \\ogoexcX\GetStarted
 \\mroexcX\GetStarted
 \\pkoexcX\GetStarted
 \\mkoexcX\GetStarted
    
    where X = 1 or 2
    
    	Regards,

  Charlie Christ just sent out a memo on the changeover to MS Exchange. It
is partly specific to the Components Division, but much of it is relevant to
the company as a whole. I found parts of it quite scary. I got the impression
that at some point we will lose the capability to send email in node::
username format. It also says that on completion of this changeover, all
"knowledge workers" will need to have PCs in their office to do their work.
All software engrs are "knowledge workers"; so are many hardware engrs.
Who is going to pay for all these new PCs? I assume the CCs will.
  The memo contains a lot of statements that we are being asked to take on
faith, about how this changeover will increase our productivity.

    When I called CCS to inquire about the information regarding
    accounts, etc.  I got the impression OpenVMS and VAX/Alpha is NOT the
    place that you want to have long-term investment.  They are definitely
    ABANDONING this environment.

    This Company is heading for oblivion when we don't even use our Own
    products.  How do you convenience Customer to use OpenVMS if we're not
    using it?

    This is the same thing that happened when the local offices stopped
    displaying and using our own Workstations at the receptionist desks and 
    had PC's instead.  Customer's definitely got the message.  I guess I
    will also.
    
    I'll guess I'll be off OpenVMS within a quarter.  I'll take my 10GB and
    attach it to a pc.  I'm definitely getting the picture.
    
    	Regards,

    I haven't seen Charlie Christ's memo, and I know zip about MS Exchange,
    but you no longer need a "pc on your desk" to run pc applications. We
    are using a product called Citrix which runs on a pc server and enables
    users on UNIX systems to have a window open on the pc server, just as
    they have windows open onto VMS systems, etc. 
    
    Actually, it's better than having a window open on a VMS system, since
    the Citrix window looks just like an entire pc display.  So, maybe one
    pc per group, if it's only going to be used to run email, is needed. 
    

  The same sort of memo (~"Everybody move to Exchange") just
  circulated around the OEM Systems Business (n�e TOEM).

                                      Atlant

Also, see pg. 6 of August 15 Digital Today.  I agree with .21 and other previous
noters, this is a bad idea.  

D.

They will have to pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard of my OpenVMS Alpha
workstation before I will use Exchange.  I realize OpenVMS Mail is old and
creaky, but I will become less productive if I am forced to use a PC for mail
and my workstation for everything else.

Unless I can run Exchange on my OpenVMS workstation at work and access my mail
easily from my Macintosh at home, I will lose functionality by moving to
Exchange.

Paul

John Rando of MCS is circulating a similar sounding memo to his
folks as well.

While using Exchange is not the worst thing in the world to happen
the proposed solution seems to be just throwing expensive hardware at the
problem.  If they truly wanted to show how we could get all these
systems to play well together, getting the MS Office Suite up and
running on Digital UNIX and OpenVMS would show our commitment
to the future without telling customers to throw out that old
legacy iron.

Putting 30000 seats of PCs on peoples desk at an optimistic
price of $US1500 is $45,000,000.  It seems we could pay 
Microsoft a tenth of that (or half) for the rights and make money selling
the results to our existing and future customer base (and still pay
Microsoft more royalties).

    I travel extensively for the project that I'm working on. For the last
    year, I've had a cc:Mail account for communicating with my customer.
    I've really come to like it, as it lets me EASILY attach Word
    documents, Excel spreadsheets, Access databases, Project planning
    files, Power Point presentations, Zip files, etc. I don't have to worry
    about uuencoding/decoding, VMS file types, PostScript etc. It's awesome.
    
    Just recently, I've started using Exchange. It's *ALMOST* as nice as
    cc:Mail and lets me attach files, change font sizes and colors in
    messages and is easy to use.
    
    What I DON'T like is the implementation that GPS (or whatever the
    name-of-the-month is for those folks) has done with Exchange. The
    address book seems a bit retarded, in that it insists that I type
    someones FIRST name to look them up, THEN it will look through last
    names. Have any idea how many Bruces and Steves there are at
    Digital???? It makes it very difficult to find out if someone has their
    exchange account yet (without calling them and asking!).
    
    Don't even get me started on the fact that my Digital1 domain account
    password EXPIRED last Thursday night, just after all of GPS had gone
    home for the day. It took them 18 hours to reset my password! (What I'd
    really like to know is why the system didn't PROMPT me to tell me that
    the password was about to expire, rather than just deciding that I
    couldn't do any more work).
    
    Mr. Palmer, if you're reading this, did you know that GPS considers a
    password reset (a 5 minute task) to be something that has a service
    level of TWO DAY response and FOUR DAY fix???? This was told to me by
    the call screener at GPS last Friday morning as I stood in the Digital
    office in Greenbelt, Maryland, trying to log in to send an important
    document to a co-worker. They could not speed up my request, even
    though I explained that I had to leave in ten minutes to get on an
    airplane.
    
    Exchange is a great tool, when it works. But to put a 500 million
    dollar project on hold until someone "gets time" to reset a password is
    beyond my comprehension. Digital's infrastructure is broken. We're
    installing better systems and better service levels for our customers
    than we have to use ourselves. We need to step up to the plate and bat
    a few home runs, before the game is over...
    
    Harry
    

    
    Please explain how one can compare the productivity of MS Office
    applications, which fit like a glove with Exchange with VMS mail.

    Re .25, Paul - it's not as bad as you think...
    
    I have an Alpha Windows NT system (actually a couple) on my desk and a
    Duo 230 for home and the road.  Exchange are running on both.  I also
    have eXcursion on the Alpha.  Don't miss my dual-head OpenVMS
    VAXstation 3800 one bit!
    
    --svb

  .27>  What I DON'T like is the implementation that GPS (or whatever the
  .27>  name-of-the-month is for those folks) has done with Exchange. The
  .27>  address book seems a bit retarded, in that it insists that I type
  .27>  someones FIRST name to look them up, THEN it will look through last
  .27>  names. Have any idea how many Bruces and Steves there are at

All you need to do is type the surname into the To: or Cc: box and then select
Tools -> Check Names (from the Menu, or the toolbar, or type ^K).

StuartR

Or type what you know of the name and then ctrl-K

re Note 4775.26 by CSC64::BLAYLOCK:

> Putting 30000 seats of PCs on peoples desk at an optimistic
> price of $US1500 is $45,000,000.  

        The memo from John Rando estimated that 90% of the services
        division desktops already had a suitable PC (I'm one of the
        10%, although I've been promised a notebook for over a year).

        What upsets me the most is that, up until now, the choice of
        mail client was essentially a personal preference for many of
        us -- all the mail systems interoperated (well, at least well
        enough to get the message across!).  The fact that J. Random
        manager used ALL-IN-1 for mail did not force me to use
        ALL-IN-1 for mail.

        It seems strange that with the advance of technology we've
        lost that, and that many of our desktops cannot participate
        regardless of mail client.

        (I'm also quite peeved that the extensive use I make of
        command procedures and Office Filter rule sets for automated
        mail handling would be disrupted by a move to Exchange
        mail.)

        Bob

>>        The memo from John Rando estimated that 90% of the services
>>        division desktops already had a suitable PC (I'm one of the
    
    This is interesting. My desk is probably one of the 90% that has a
    "suitable PC". However, while my PC is eminently suitable to run
    exchange, it's purpose in life is reproducing customer problems. It
    therefore gets torn down and rebuilt when the need arises. This makes
    it definitely unsuitable for running production services such as Email,
    that I need guaranteed access to.
    
    Tony I 

RE: .32 -< feels like a step backward >-

>        us -- all the mail systems interoperated (well, at least well
>        enough to get the message across!).  The fact that J. Random

I think you are comparing apples and oranges here, Bob.  Yes, in past
years all of the mail systems interoperated, but they only interoperated
in passing straight ASCII text: no binary attachments were allowed.  The
job was much simpler (I didn't say it was simple, but it was certainly
easier than what we are asking for today).

Think of this as equivalent in moving from VT52/VT100 type text displays
to full Motif/PC-type graphical displays.  Yes, the old system was quite
functional, and yes we had a great deal of investment in it, but the new
system has (supposedly) more functionality, and we simply can't do the
same kinds of things on a VT52 we can do on a full-blown GUI.

I am one who used to program the VT52/VT100 style displays, and who was
quite happy for years with VMSmail.  Both of them did everything I wanted,
and when they forced me to switch to ALL-IN-1 and then TeamLinks on a PC,
the first thing I did was to auto-forward all my ALL-IN-1 mail to my
VMSmail account, so I could read it using my VT100 terminal emulator.

This worked great, until someone sent me a .DOC file and asked me to 
comment on it. :-(

I know the switch is difficult and expensive: all shifts in fundamental
technology are such.  But we are asking our mail systems to do a lot more
today than we used to, and we need to make the switch.

-- Ken Moreau

    Any idea when MS-Exchange will support IMAP4?
    
    Thanks,
    - Vikas

re Note 4775.34 by ODIXIE::MOREAU:

> I think you are comparing apples and oranges here, Bob.  Yes, in past
> years all of the mail systems interoperated, but they only interoperated
> in passing straight ASCII text: no binary attachments were allowed.  The
> job was much simpler (I didn't say it was simple, but it was certainly
> easier than what we are asking for today).

        There are many interoperating mail components that support
        binary attachments, and they don't require Exchange.

> But we are asking our mail systems to do a lot more
> today than we used to, and we need to make the switch.

        But why did we *stop* asking our mail systems to
        interoperate?

        *That* is the giant step backwards.

        Bob

.        What upsets me the most is that, up until now, the choice of
.        mail client was essentially a personal preference for many of
.        us -- all the mail systems interoperated (well, at least well
.        enough to get the message across!).  

	After more than 2 years of memos from my most-VMS-Mail corporate
	friends into my A1 I would say interoperated rather less than more
	Unreadable attachments, forget about complete and readable distribution
	lists therefore forget answering the DL etc... 
	
	I understand that CCS (not Global Positioning System anymore) 
	implementation may not be ideal. I understand that there is an
	important cost associated to Exchange and that there maybe different
        ways to go but I'm please we go and hope 95% will go.

	But Exchange or not people need PCs, better PCs, more powerful PCs 
	to do their job. So we cannot isolate the fact that we have to spend
	money for Exchange from the fact that we need to spend money to
	improve the ability of Digital (nearly all knowledge-) workers in 
	general to do their job and be in sync with the changing world.
 
	What worries me in the memo from management is sentence like

	 About migration:
         'Within the company the individual business units are taking
         different approaches. Some, for example, encourage you to...'
	 
	 About Training:
         Each individual will receive training, the specific
         nature of which will be determined by your organisational unit.

	What worries me about the workers are:	

Note 4775.20  MS-Exchange mail accounts & Digital Domain Accounts?      20 of 30
IROCZ::MORRISON "Bob M. LKG1-3/A11 226-7570"         10 lines  26-AUG-1996 16:19
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. I found parts of it quite scary. I got the impression that at some point we
. will lose the capability to send email in node::username format. 

	SO WHAT! You will use only the username, big deal

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 4775.22  MS-Exchange mail accounts & Digital Domain Accounts?      22 of 30
PADC::KOLLING "Karen"                                10 lines  26-AUG-1996 16:59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.    Actually, it's better than having a window open on a VMS system, since
.    the Citrix window looks just like an entire pc display.  So, maybe one
.    pc per group, if it's only going to be used to run email, is needed. 
    
	What about one PC per plant or even one for the whole company?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 4775.25  MS-Exchange mail accounts & Digital Domain Accounts?      25 of 30
FUNYET::ANDERSON "Just say NO to Clinton & Dole!"    10 lines  26-AUG-1996 17:42
                        -< Never used ALL-IN-1 either >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.They will have to pry my cold dead fingers off the keyboard of my OpenVMS Alpha
.workstation before I will use Exchange.  I realize OpenVMS Mail is old and
.creaky, but I will become less productive if I am forced to use a PC for mail
.and my workstation for everything else.

	So you are the type of guy who use OLD technology, who send memos 
	where I do not see the DL and I cannot answer to the full DL without 
	spending long time to reconstitute it... If your future in this
	company is less that one year that's fine but if you want to stay
	longer please revisit your position. If there is a PC in your plant
	have a look at it it's a very interesting piece of hardware.

RE: .32

	A future version of Exchange Server will support POP3 clients so
	that you aren't locked into the Exchange Client. Of course, you
	will lose some things like Inbox Assistant and public folders, but
	for those of you that crave simplicity over features, it'll be
	a simple way to get at your mail. Now, if someone has ported a 
	POP3 client to VMS...........

	RE: Office Filter

	Exchange has this functionality built-in. It works quite well. All
	those "Jazzercise" mails go to the bit bucket now. It shouldn't
	take much to create similar rules to do the things Office Filter
	does.

	From the For What It's Worth Dept, my group is integrating
	voicemail into Microsoft Exchange. Your telephone will be
	connected via an AlphaServer running Windows NT and Exchange
	Server. If you aren't at your phone or already on the line, the
	system will answer, take the voice message, convert it to .WAV 
	format and send an email with the .WAV attachment to your 
	Exchange mailbox. It's been featured on CNN's Computer Connection
	thru our partner, Mitel Corporation. Expect announcements in the
	near future from Digital.

	Some URL's:

	Our home page: 	http://isg25.zko.dec.com
	CNN article:	http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9606/21/tele.computer/
	Mitel:		http://www.mitel.com

					
							mike

    .30>All you need to do is type the surname into the To: or Cc: box and
    .30>then select Tools -> Check Names (from the Menu, or the toolbar, or 
    .30>type ^K).
    
    Actually, it's "Compose" -> "Check Names". Lotus cc:Mail does this for
    you on the "To:" line automatically. As you type, it brings up the
    closest match right there. No extra mouse or keyboard actions required.
    Plus, using the "last name", "first name" format makes it much quicker.
    Other than very common surnames, like Smith, there usually aren't very
    many matches so the search is quick.
    
    Harry
    

re .28,

> Please explain how one can compare the productivity of MS Office applications,
> which fit like a glove with Exchange with VMS mail.

I can't.  Although I sometimes use PowerPoint, I have never used any of the
other applications in Office.

re .32,

> What upsets me the most is that, up until now, the choice of mail client was
> essentially a personal preference for many of us -- all the mail systems
> interoperated (well, at least well enough to get the message across!).  The
> fact that J. Random manager used ALL-IN-1 for mail did not force me to use
> ALL-IN-1 for mail.

Bingo!  I don't understand why someone should be forced to use a mail client not
of their choosing, if their current choice fills their need.  I never used
ALL-IN-1, either, because I didn't like the interface and it gave me no added
functionality over what I was using.

The DECwindows Motif interface to OpenVMS Mail allows me quick access to years
of stored messages.  Point, click, done.  Only once in my nine years have I ever
received a mail message I could not read with OpenVMS Mail.  Internal or
external, DECnet or TCP/IP, UUENCODED or text, it works for me.

re .36,

> There are many interoperating mail components that support binary attachments,
> and they don't require Exchange.

And they don't require using a PeeCee.

Paul

re Note 4775.37 by GVAADG::PERINO:

> 	After more than 2 years of memos from my most-VMS-Mail corporate
> 	friends into my A1 I would say interoperated rather less than more
> 	Unreadable attachments, forget about complete and readable distribution
> 	lists therefore forget answering the DL etc... 

        Well, we both have to separate the effects of bad system
        implementation and management from the particular mail tools
        we have used.  I have had good experience, but then I have
        used mail systems set up and managed first by engineering and
        then by myself my entire career -- the results have been
        good.

        I'm sure that I'm more than just a little concerned about
        centrally managed things, since people who have used them in
        the past seem to have had more trouble than I have had.

        I do use mail readers that can support attachments, but I get
        such attachments less than once a week, whereas I get over 50
        mail messages a day -- most of it automatically processed.

        I do support your or anybody else's choice of mail system to
        eliminate the problems you have or to facilitate the way you
        and your group choose to work.  I am not telling anybody that
        they should use VMS Mail (or anything else) or that they must
        not send binary attachments.  I'm just asking for an
        implementation that gives me the same freedom to choose (my
        constraints and my experience might be quite different) as
        long as we can interoperate.

        A system that requires me to be running a Microsoft desktop
        with a certain above-minimum level of software and
        connectivity in order to send or receive *any* mail is a bad
        choice, and would be a bad choice for many of our customers
        as well.

        Bob

re .37,

> So you are the type of guy who use OLD technology

I don't think an OpenVMS Alpha workstation with 128 MB of memory with CDE
(Common Desktop Environment) is old technology.

> who send memos where I do not see the DL and I cannot answer to the full DL
> without spending long time to reconstitute it...

Guilty, but I don't think much of the mail I send needs to be responded to in
this way.

> If your future in this company is less that one year that's fine but if you
> want to stay longer please revisit your position.

I'd rather not comment on that. ;-)

> If there is a PC in your plant have a look at it it's a very interesting piece
> of hardware.

In my cubicle, I have two OpenVMS workstations (one Alpha, one VAX), a Macintosh
and a Windows NT system.  The Windows NT system is the hardest one to use.  The
Macintosh is the easiest, but since the great majority of applications I run can
run on OpenVMS, that's my system of choice.

Give me an Exchange client I can seamlessly run on my workstation and I'll use
it.  Until then, Exchange takes away too much functionality for me to consider
it.

Paul

There is a supported Mac Exchange client, Paul.  It works fine.

Drop me a line, and I'll point you to it.

Rick

    re. Those that don't have Exchange ready boxes...
    
    Perhaps it might have been prudent to hold the "warehouse" full of
    ALPHA multia's for distribution to employees needing PC type access
    to Exchange, and other Microsoft products.
    
    cheers,
    
    	fred deady

http;//www.microsoft.com/kb/softlib/msfiles/SP2_40MA.EXE is a
self expanding NT file which will give you a 13mb .hqx file, if I
recall correctly.

Rick

    Here in the FS "MCS" office we are using VT1000 or VT2000's connected
    to a VAX/VMS system.  Do these work with Exchange?  If not then we will
    be out of communications range, as will a lot of other field folks.
    
    Ready, fire, Aim....
    
    Dave

According to trade press, SMTP and POP3 are in version 4.1 (currently in Beta)
and I bet IMAP4 and LDAP come soon after.

BobW

>================================================================================
>Note 4775.35  MS-Exchange mail accounts & Digital Domain Accounts?      35 of 45
>HELIX::SONTAKKE                                       4 lines  27-AUG-1996 09:13
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>    Any idea when MS-Exchange will support IMAP4?
>    
>    Thanks,
>    - Vikas
>

Paul,

What you describe is a big box and a new coat of paint.  If you look inside,
you still see a minicomputer with delusions of grandeur.  VMSMail is so woefully
deficient that the only example it serves is as a bad one.  I'm really glad to
see that the move to Exchange is making folks at Digital move out of the '70s.

BobW

>================================================================================
>Note 4775.42  MS-Exchange mail accounts & Digital Domain Accounts?      42 of 45
>FUNYET::ANDERSON "Just say NO to Clinton & Dole!"    31 lines  27-AUG-1996 10:10
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
>> So you are the type of guy who use OLD technology
>
>I don't think an OpenVMS Alpha workstation with 128 MB of memory with CDE
>(Common Desktop Environment) is old technology.
>

..> Give me an Exchange client I can seamlessly run on my workstation and I'll 
..> use
..> it.  Until then, Exchange takes away too much functionality for me to 
..> consider
..> it.

This is important for me too, but I also appreciate the near constant 
availability and instant response times (when using character cell interface)
that I get from my current ALL-IN-1/MailWorks server.  I'd hate to lose that 
too.

As far as binary attachments occasionally one shows up in my inbox and I use a 
TeamLinks client to read it.  If someone really prefers the Exchange client 
I'm sure that will be an option soon (if it's not already) as most other 
popular desktop mail tools are supported by Mailworks.  FWIW 75% of my mail 
and 90% of the content is still ASCII.

I haven't seen much in this recent thread regarding how we're adopting a 
competitor's product over our own.  What's next SAP on hPUX, 3090s in Maynard, 
Sparcstations in Spitbrook?

D.

>> VMSMail is so woefully
>> deficient that the only example it serves is as a bad one.

You are perhaps missing the point.  Using a VMS workstation is not the same as
using VMS Mail.  Paul so much as said he'd use an Exchange client if you gave
him one for VMS.

A bunch of us are objecting to being forced to add yet another box.  If Digital
is going to sell workstations, let us use them, and provide the tools so we can
get our work done on them.  If we can't do something as simple as receive mail
on our workstations, sell off the whole workstation business unit.  As for
Exchange, I fail to see why a whiz-bang mail program that does 999% (that's
three nine's) of what I need to do with mail is reason enough to require me to
have more machines.

Will there be (is there currently) an Exchange client for Digital Unix and/or
OpenVMS?

						Brian

    Sigh.  Complete lunacy.
    
    I don't even keep my VMS mail on my workstation, or on my NT system, or
    on my laptop.  I can't afford to manage the disk space, nor can I
    afford to lose the data when my local system disk goes south.  Or is
    stolen.  Nor can I afford to not get mail, just because the path to
    my local system is screwed up (or there was a power failure).
    
    I keep my mail on a big-ass cluster in the backroom, where I at least
    have the illusion that things are backed up, and where I can afford to
    have a couple MB of mail archived (not to mention the 6000 messages I
    have yet to file).
    
    Will I use MS-exchange?  Sure, when we have a backroon server running
    it, and I can access my mail remote.  Does MS-exchange do this?   And
    when will I have it on a big-ass server in the backroom?
    
    

    re: Note 4775.51 by STAR::KLEINSORGE "Fred Kleinsorge"
    
    > Will I use MS-exchange?  Sure, when we have a backroon server
    > running it, and I can access my mail remote.  Does MS-exchange do this?  
    > And when will I have it on a big-ass server in the backroom?
    
    This is how Exchange works NOW!
    
    
    Just to throw my $.02 in, I've been an Exchange user for about 3
    months now, and have been very happy with it.
    
    Ken....
    

    I hope they sort out some of the useability issues before full
    deployment. I recently received a mail message sent from an Exchange
    client to a large distribution list. There were about 25 screens'
    worth of distribution list in front of the 10-line message. I very
    nearly deleted the message before I found the text I was supposed to
    read.

I have been using VAXMail since 1982 and switched completely to
Exchange about a month ago. It does all the things that I ever heard
of that people wished that VAXmail or ALL-IN-1 did. I use it from home
and the office and am very happy with it.

I'll bet that if you give it an honest chance, you'll like it.

Pete

    Re; I recently received a mail message sent from an Exchange
    client to a large distribution list. There were about 25 screens'
    worth of distribution list
    
    I get that kind of nonsense from clueless mail users fairly
    often.  It's not peculiar to Exchange.
                              

    I seem to remember in the announcement that we would be going to
    Exchange, that we will be wandering away from the archaic
    character-cell interface that we have all grown to love, that minimizes
    bandwidth, and that reduces our home workstations to mere terminal
    emulators.  IMO the vast dollar savings we will reap will come from the
    fact that the other character cell applications that will go away will
    be notes and VTX.  When we start running windows applications from some
    server node it is likely that there will be a bandwidth problem in our
    existing network.  How will that be overcome?  
    
    or, perhaps I have erroneously jumped to an invalid conclusion.

re .48,

> If you look inside, you still see a minicomputer with delusions of grandeur.

What I see is a wonderful operating system that is easy to use and hardly ever
needs to be rebooted.  I will agree that OpenVMS Mail does not have some modern
features some require.

After reading all these notes, the disadvantages to Exchange in my mind are:

  � My cost center will now have to pay for my mail access, which is now free.
  � If I don't have access to a PC, I don't have access to my mail.
  � I have to use one computer for mail and another for everything else.

I guess what irks me above and beyond the technical reasons why someone does or
doesn't like a particular mail system is the feeling by management that "one
size fits all."

re .56,

> IMO the vast dollar savings we will reap will come from the fact that the
> other character cell applications that will go away will be notes and VTX.

Notes and VTX are perfect examples of applications that can be run with multiple
interfaces.  Character-cell, Motif, Windows, you pick.  If Exchange could do
this I'd become a believer.  Maybe.

Paul

> Notes and VTX are perfect examples of applications that can be run with 
> multiple
> interfaces.  Character-cell, Motif, Windows, you pick.

Nit, that should be: Character-cell, Motif, Windows, Mac, you pick.

	There is a DOS, Win 3.x, Win95, Windows NT and Mac clients for
	Microsoft Exchange. Unix is coming, or so I've read.

	As I said elsewhere, POP3 support in Exchange Server is coming
	with version 4.1. Then your list of clients is almost limitless.

	If you can find a POP3 client for OpenVMS, then by the end
	of the year or so, you should be able to get at your Exchange
	mail.

							mike

    
    .52  Great.  Can someone install it on STAR:: for me?  I'm willing to
    try it.
    
    

    re: Note 4775.60 by STAR::KLEINSORGE "Fred Kleinsorge"
    
    Ahhh...you didn't say which platforms you wanted it on.
    
    Ken....

    OK.  
    
    How about an AlphaServer 2100 running OpenVMS?  Or does the system
    have to be running NT?  Makes it a bit less useful...  but I guess I'm
    just an anomoly, I work for the O/S group that sells all those
    AlphaServers and TurboLasers.  Maybe we have a big-ass server in the
    lab running NT as a production system.
    
    

    If you work in ZK how about stopping an OpenVMS Product Manager and get
    some insights.  According to some information I've seen with TCP
    Service for OpenVMS V4.future POP3 client/server support will be
    available with a product from one of the universities.
    
    This should be able to extend the life of OpenVMS mail?
    
    
    	Regards,

    
    Never mind a big-ass server.  I thought that NT had a 16GB of disk
    limit.  So if every user has 10mb that's 160 users per system.  
    Now divide 50000 employees by 160 and you get 312 systems to manage.
    Meanwhile in the UK we have one system with thousands of users.
    
    Of course, I could have my facts wrong.
    
    Mike  

    re -.1 This is the second time I've read a note claiming this. I can't
    remember where the other one was but it soon got corrected. I can't be
    bothered to look up the real disk storage capacity of NT as someone
    else will know off the top of their head and reply soon, but trust me
    it is HUGE (we're talking EXABYTES).
    
    I'd like to know who is perpetrating this mis-information (Novell?)
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I

    Re: .64
    
    As far as I'm aware, the Windows NT File System (NTFS) is designed
    to manage 2^64 byte storage devices.
    
    In other words, there's no 16GB disk limit in Windows NT; keep
    adding disk controllers and drives as you please (you do, however,
    still have to live with the A: to Z: drive letter naming, so
    one is best to use a RAID controller to consolidate multiple
    physical drives behind a single drive letter).
    
    ...petri

    reply to .64
    
    The 16GB limitation is an Exchange limitation (not NT) and this
    limitation will go away in the future. Even with this limitation, you
    can put 800 users on an Exchange with 20MB of disk space for each user
    (or 1600 users with 10MB for each user - not 160 users).

    Hello,
    
    Re last few messages.  Exchange for now is limited to a 16GB database
    limit. So if you have 20mb per user, you can have 800 users per server.  
    The other noter was wrong when he said 160 (it's 1600).  This limit 
    will be removed in forthcoming releases of Exchange.
    
    Regards,
    
    Larry

My $.02c

   During these discussion on the merits, or otherwise, of moving to
   MS-Exchange a number of people have mentioned that this move is a cost
   saver. Irrespective of the other points in the argument I wish to take
   issue to the myth that moving to PC based tools results in cost savings,
   for the following reasons.

   1. Cost of running de-centralised vs centralised systems.

     All the consultancy companies now admit that centralised systems are
     cheaper to maintain than de-centralised systems (even though 2-3 years
     ago they advocated de-centralised systems). 

     The costs of running and maintaining centralised systems are, usually,
     controllable and can be kept within bounds (hardware, system managers,
     software & service contracts). The cost of managing these systems is
     large which is why users are looking for cheaper alternatives. 

     Unfortunately the costs of de-centralised systems are, usually, hidden,
     variable, difficult to control and increase over time. Individual users
     spend a proportion of their time managing their own systems (while the
     company pays them to do something else), individuals who are
     knowledgeable in the technology become de-facto system managers (even
     though part cost savings was getting rid of system managers).
     Maintaining the versions of the software tools across the company
     becomes extremely difficult. Upgrading software versions often requires
     upgrading of hardware. The upgrading of software may also be driven by
     individuals rather than company decisions (e.g. an individual purchases
     a new printer whose drivers are only available on the latest version of
     the operating system. Anyone who wants to use to printer is forced to
     upgrade, this effect can spiral eventually forcing the whole company to
     upgrade).

   2. PC based systems cannot be guaranteed to be centralised.

     Irrespective of a companies intentions, PCs (including NT systems) can
     be configured any way the users wants them to be configured. You can't
     empower users and then complain the users have power. To control this
     potential anarchy, one company that I know of re-installs software on
     all PCs once a week to ensure compatibility. Windows NT version 4.0 may
     allow PCs to be managed within a clustered environment providing
     compatibility but I don't see much evidence of NT users running tightly
     controlled centralised environments. 

   3. Future compatibility issues.

     The real costs involved in moving to exchange will be in the future. PC
     tools provide a grudging forward compatibility (e.g. try editing a
     MSWord document containing drawings, created on an old version with the
     latest version) and no backward compatibility (try reading documents
     generated on Word version 6 on version 3). Therefore will moving to
     exchange require the whole company to maintain the same version of PC
     tools, who will bear the associated cost of continuous upgrading of
     software and more expensively, hardware? 


   I am not arguing that we should not use MS-Exchange I am just pointing
   out that moving to MS-Exchange will not result in cost savings.

Regards
Brendan Murphy

    re: Note 4775.69 by DPPSYS::BMURPHY
    
    But the current Exchange implementation is MORE centralized than the
    VMS mail system is, offering the cost savings you point out. How many
    VMS clusters (with their attendant support infrastructure) do we have
    now? I believe there are less than a dozen Exchange servers.
    
    Client/server (in particular, WWW technologies), is allowing a return
    to a more centralized computing model.
    
    Ken....

    
    re: -.1
    
    The Exchange implementation is very centralized, but the
    implementation/management of the rest of the desktop environment
    (i.e., hardware and software) is not.  There are some mechanisms
    which could be set up for making necessary software (e.g., Word)
    available to everyone via the net, and some tools would allow
    automatic distribution/installation of that software (usually
    with the user's approval).  If this was coupled with corporate
    licenses for those products, it could actually make life easier
    for many/most users (purchasing new and upgrade software can be
    a nightmare right now).  Unfortunately, the necessary hardware
    upgrade problem is harder to solve.
    
    Rich

    Re .20 etc recent memo on migrating to Exchange:

    I also received one of the memos on changeover to MS Exchange. Included
    in the attached Q&A is a statement that "7000 Digital people who rely
    on Exchange as their primary messaging system." Does anyone know how
    the 7000 were counted? How does 7000 compare to the total number of
    accounts? I have an account but I do not rely on it. 

    re .27 exchange address book

    fyi - The usability problems of the Exchange address book (directory)
    in large, distributed enterprises has been recognized as a significant
    problem in reviews that I have read in personal computer magazines. At
    least specific customers interviewed have had this experience. Just
    agreeing with you. 

    - Bob

    7,000 seems to be a popular number at Digital these days!
    
    ;^)

    We actually have 8,300 accounts now up on CCS Exchange servers.  Of
    course many of these might be disusered already.  Other groups in the 
    company have upwards of 2,000 accounts.  Obviously some people aren't
    using exchange but the majority of people who have accounts are using
    it.
    
    Regards,
    
    Larry

    re .72
    
    >>  fyi - The usability problems of the Exchange address book (directory)
    >> in large, distributed enterprises has been recognized as a
    >> significant problem in reviews that I have read in personal computer 
    >> magazines.
    
    Enterprise Directoriesis a favourite hobby horse of mine and one which 
    I'm on record as having predicted being a problem for Exchange to solve
    
    However ....
    
    At least Exchange does *HAVE* a directory and shareable/visible 
    distribution lists and delivery receipts and read receipts and priority
    flags and sensitivity flags and personal preferences and forms
    and........ and heaps of other things that help group communications.  
    
    The Luddite comments of the VMSmail lobby in this thread (e.g. "pry my 
    cold fingers from my MAIL> prompt...") are really quite disturbing as I
    see no difference between this stance than that of my old competitors'
    diehard customers (PROFS, Unipalm, Wang, OpenMail....)
    
    C'mon VMS - don't cling to MAIL-11 all your lives - give us a next
    generation VMS client into state-of-the-art e-mail servers.
    
    /Chris/

    re .74

    Thanks but how do we know that of these 7000 are using Exchange as
    their "primary" mail system? I never doubted there were 7000 or so
    accounts. I just "used" Exchange myself to read three mails I received
    over the last two days (3 advisories from CCS). 

    re .69 Client/Server support costs

    Ditto. Cost of supporting client/server systems is almost
    mind-boggleing. Consultants have warned of this for years; but many
    people did not want to believe it. One of the main costs, usually
    unmeasured, is peer support time. I once asked the FEW program office
    if Multia systems would be supported and this was a direct result of my
    not wanting to manage a PC at work (one at home is enough) and my need
    for multiple system access similar to my VXT2000. I discussed this in
    detail but the Multia system was never considered and there was
    skepticism that support costs could be so high with desktop PCs.

    - Bob

                      <<< Note 4775.74 by MROA::HEIER_L >>>
                           -< Clarification on #'s >-

    We actually have 8,300 accounts now up on CCS Exchange servers.  Of
    course many of these might be disusered already.  Other groups in the 
    company have upwards of 2,000 accounts.  Obviously some people aren't
    using exchange but the majority of people who have accounts are using
    it.
    
    Regards,
    
    Larry

    RE: a few back.
    
    I too have an Exchange account, in DOMAIN2 if I recall correctly.
    Unfortunately, I don't have a PC at work, nor is there any likelihood
    of my ever having one. However, another contractor and I are grateful
    for shared access to a very old and basically useless DECstation 325
    (386SX-25) with a 200meg HD and 6 meg of memory running Windows 3.1
    
    At home I have a 486DX4-120 with gigabytes of diskspace and 40meg of
    memory. I have performance on my home desktop my creaky old VXT2000 can
    only dream about, especially using the Internet via my local ISP, mail
    included.
    
    Worrying about which mail protocol to use at work is academic, IMO.
    
    Cheers, Laurie$VAXMAIL.

    This is off the subject but I thoght the DECstation 325 was a
    386DX-25MHz system?  If so, you can upgrade it to a 486-50 or higher
    for about $125.  Check the DECstation notesfiles.  I upgraded a bunch
    of DECstation 333c and DECstation 425c to 486-66MHz and 586-100
    respectively.  The cost was $113 for the 486 and $219 for the 586. 
    Definitely worth the investment.
    
    CDW Computer Centers, Inc.
    800/800-4CDW
    
    	Regards,
    

    Nice idea. Wanna convince my manager? Personally, I wouldn't use it as
    a boat anchor, the things are rubbish.
    
    Laurie.
    
    PS. I know your suggestion was made in good faith, I'm just a *lot*
        grumpy about having no PC.

http://www.windowsnt.digital.com/press/Exchwp.htm

4.6 16 GB information store limitations

The maximum size of the Exchange Server private and public information
store databases on a single server is 16 GB each. These limitations must be
taken into consideration as you plan the amount of server storage for each
user. For customers whose user communities regularly back up their PCs or
laptops, personal folder stores can be used to extend the server storage
limitations, i.e., personal folders that are stored on the user's local
disk. System administrators should set and enforce storage space
policies per user and warn users when they are exceeding their quota. 

Microsoft plans to address the 16 GB information store limitation in a
future release of Exchange Server.

    
    I'm putting in my request for a PC first thing Tuesday morning... not
    that it will be approved - since capital spending is being squeezed. 
    But I now have this nifty memo that says we need to become PC-centric
    and by golly, I need Windows 95.  I'm ready.  Lets see what happens
    when a couple hundred PCs get ordered in my group.
    
    
    

I saw the memo too - it said that there was some sort of UNIX and VMS mail
software that worked with Exchange, but gave no details or even a name.  I'm
not familiar with any.

I've had a request in for a PC for three quarters now - no funding.  And I'd
actually use this for work-related activities.

					Steve

    I don't have any work-related need for a PC (other than to read mail
    on if that memo was for real - I was assuming it was targeted at people
    who are now forced to use All-in-One mail).  I don't even know where
    I'd put one if I had it.  I have three prototype workstations in my
    office right now, with a total of four monitors, and I am trying to get
    yet another proto system in here since we don't even have one for
    testing.  But since we can't order anything anyhow, I don't think it
    would help if I requested a PC anyways.  I suppose if I booted Windoes
    NT on one of them I could call it a "PC", sort of, but I do Unix and
    VMS work.  Mostly Unix.
    
    (Yeah, I have a PC at home, but I seldom use it for anything beyond text
    processing.  I use the Mac I have at home for all graphics-intensive
    work, which I do a lot of.  The PC runs Windows 95.)
    
    Almost all of the mail I get, both internal mail and mail from outside
    the comapny, is ASCII text and has no reason to be in any kind of more
    disk-intensive format, and all the mailing systems that send and
    receive it interoperate fine.  I get annoyed when someone sends me
    something that isn't, I find the right software to decompress it, and
    print it out, and find out it is something that wasn't worth the time,
    let alone the disk space.  One time some "friend" of mine sent what
    turned out to be a copy of his new business card.  I guess he was proud
    of the wierd fonts he was using, or something...
    
    /Charlotte
                                                    

        The problem of mail being sent around which the receiver
        cannot read is not a new one.

        I can remember how, in the early 80's when PostScript
        printers were introduced, many kinds of Email which had been
        adequately sent in ASCII were now sent as PostScript files.

        True, the mail system could handle PostScript just fine, but
        for what seemed like the longest time I had no PostScript
        printer and so most such messages I just ignored.

        Even today, some of the desktops I use have no reasonable
        PostScript viewer generally available.

        Bob

    Some of the administrative people here for a while were heavily into
    emailing all the engineers their own copies of huge postscript files,
    which, if you bothered to extract and print/view them, turned out to be
    three-page lists of everyone's email address and office phone number (a
    really small file when in ASCII).  They haven't learned to just ship
    this stuff around in ASCII instead, but at least most of the time most
    of them now just send a pointer to the thing and a brief description of
    it, so that most of us don't either fill up disk space or kill trees
    with most of this not-very-interesting-usually info!
    
    If the font info isn't important to the information content of the
    document, it saves lots of space to not bother to ship all the font
    stuff to all recipients.  A lot of the time it isn't important.
    
    /Charlotte
                                                                  

Apply the Affinity ideas to MS-Exchange.

I gather MS-Exchange servers use non-database files to store data.  Multiple
MS-Exchange servers ought to be able to share those files on a file server
(smop).  Make that file server a high performance OpenVMS disaster tolerant
Cluster.

Recompile the code using an OpenVMS Alpha compiler and the WIN-32 library.  Run
the server and/or the client on OpenVMS.

I thought it ironic that the announcement message I got:

"Digital Office Environment - MS Exchange Migration 1" from Harry Copperman

... was mailed using ALL-IN-1.

Bob

RE: .87 -< Ironic >-

>I thought it ironic that the announcement message I got:
>"Digital Office Environment - MS Exchange Migration 1" from Harry Copperman
>... was mailed using ALL-IN-1.

It would only have been ironic if the announcement had stated that the
migration was complete.  Harry took great pains to say that it was a work
in progress, and that different areas of Digital were moving at different
speeds.

I have heard of the "Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time-Players", which immediately
got taken over by the world and everyone (including myself) now talks about
how this or that piece of technology is "Not-Ready-For-Prime-Time".  But
in this case, we have software which is "Not-Ready-For-VPs" :-)

-- Ken Moreau
   who can and does now receive mail on VMSmail, ALL-IN-1, TeamLinks and
   Microsoft Exchange, but who reads it all from one location

    Just as a side note.  I actually agree with the memo from Harry about
    moving us out of several decade old character cell terminal mode into
    the world that we are telling our customers that we want them to be in. 
    
    That is, I can't think of any way to make "Affinity" (or connectivity,
    or whatever we are calling it these days) work better than forcing the
    developers to live in the environment that we want them to create.
    
    As long as I have a nice multi-terminal-window Alpha workstation, I
    could care less about how well a PC works with OpenVMS.  Force me to
    access that OpenVMS system using only a PC, and you'd be suprised how
    quickly my interest will rise.
    
    My only concern is that this is an unfunded mandate (I sound like a
    Republican) that will be not implemented, partially implemented, and
    implemented for the wrong people.  I mentioned that I needed a PC to
    get in line with the memo to my managers manager... he said "Sure,
    there is *plenty* of capital.  Go ahead.  Order 4."  Of course, you
    can't quite capture the way he said it in a notesfile.
    
    I don't know about other groups, but ours is getting it's budget
    squeezed dry.  Capital spending is *not* something likey to increase.
    Unless this move to PC desktops is funded explicitly.
    

re Note 4775.86 by AMCFAC::RABAHY:

> Recompile the code using an OpenVMS Alpha compiler and the WIN-32 library.  Run
> the server and/or the client on OpenVMS.
  
        An excellent idea, but I get the impression that the affinity
        program exists to let code flow in the opposite direction
        (VMS -> NT).  I think this would be especially true for the
        owner of this code (Microsoft).

        Bob

nre Note 4775.86 by AMCFAC::RABAHY:

>> Recompile the code using an OpenVMS Alpha compiler and the WIN-32 library.
>> Run the server and/or the client on OpenVMS.
  
  >  An excellent idea, but I get the impression that the affinity
  >  program exists to let code flow in the opposite direction
  > (VMS -> NT).  I think this would be especially true for the
  >  owner of this code (Microsoft).

  Just the exchange client piece. This would make an excellent bridge 
  for both our customers and internal use. Me thinks there's lots of 
  faithful vax/vms users who don't want (and can't afford) a "PC" just to
  run exchange to read their man now that it's a mandate.

  Would save lots of money in the long run and make us look like we
  really care about the vms install base too. ahh, VMS and NT, a happy
  marriage (yeah, right)

  Porting the exchange server end is abit of a reach and doesn't
  really make sense.

re Note 4775.91 by MSE1::PCOTE:

>   Just the exchange client piece. This would make an excellent bridge 
>   for both our customers and internal use. Me thinks there's lots of 
>   faithful vax/vms users who don't want (and can't afford) a "PC" just to
>   run exchange to read their man now that it's a mandate.
> 
>   Would save lots of money in the long run and make us look like we
>   really care about the vms install base too. ahh, VMS and NT, a happy
>   marriage (yeah, right)
> 
>   Porting the exchange server end is abit of a reach and doesn't
>   really make sense.
  
        Once again, the affinity program is directed towards server
        migration, rather than client.  Some of the parts of Win32
        that would be more likely to be needed in clients are not
        implemented (e.g., display functions).

        Bob

    In one of the messages received on Exchange, it mentioned that there is
    a minimum configuration needed on a PC to use Exchange.  Does anyone
    know what this "configuration" is?  We have a couple of excess PC's,
    but before we do something with them, it would be nice to know what
    we'll need in the near future so that if these extras have the right
    config, they could be swapped in for ones that don't.
    
    Thanks for any help.
    
    Pat

FWIW, I just sent mail with multiple attachments from UNIX V4 to exchange.
I haven't tried the other direction yet. I just wish I could pop an NT 
window up on my workstation like I do with all my other systems. liesl

re Note 4775.94 by DSNENG::KOLBE:

> FWIW, I just sent mail with multiple attachments from UNIX V4 to exchange.
> I haven't tried the other direction yet. I just wish I could pop an NT 
> window up on my workstation like I do with all my other systems. liesl
  
        You *can* do this if you have access to an NT system running
        one of the right special versions of NT (NTrigue by Insignia
        comes to mind as one of them) that allow NT windows to be
        remotely displayed on X Windows workstations.  It would be
        really nice if CCS (or is it GPS or CNS?) planned on
        providing this as part of the Exchange mail service.

        Bob

    Re: .94
    
    > FWIW, I just sent mail with multiple attachments from UNIX V4 to
    > exchange.  I haven't tried the other direction yet. I just wish I
    > could pop an NT window up on my workstation like I do with all my
    > other systems.
    
    As I mentioned earlier in this string, you can do this.  We use the
    Citrix package for this.
    

    These are two sets of requirements that we've been using  - from two
    different sources, for Exchange running on Windows95:
    
    486 any speed
    12 MB memory
    500 MB disk (total) for full installation
    340 MB disk for compact installation (laptop, no clipart, etc.)
    
    486 66 or higher
    16 MB memory
    200 MB available disk for Exchange
    
    I would be interested in hearing about experience with these levels.

    Re: .97
    
    Given the memory requirements for decent performance of Win95, etc. I
    wouldn't buy a pc with less than 16 MB of memory.  1 GB hard disks are
    relatively cheap and almost standard in pc configs today;  it's what we
    order as the default, even for secretaries' less intensive use pcs.  I
    grubbed around a bit in vtx price and the IEG price difference between
    one 1 GB and a 500-something hard disk was about $100, just as an
    example.
    

    Hard disks may be getting cheaper, but software is expanding its size
    to fill them just as fast. I wouldn't want 200-340 Mb of my 1Gb taken
    up with (despite what Microsoft says) an e-mail client. (Especially
    when you consider that Duke Nukem 3d fits into about 30Mb and that
    includes it's own run-time environment and graphics system 8*)).
    
    Tony I

RE: .99

	The numbers quoted in .97 are misleading.. Exchange client takes
	up around 10-12MB in a standard installation on a Win95 system.

	More space is probably needed during installation time. I'll
	guess about double.

							mike

re .92:

>Some of the parts of Win32
>that would be more likely to be needed in clients are not
>implemented (e.g., display functions).

The Affinity library does include display functions.  Win32 calls are trapped
and jacketed into DECwindows/X-Motif calls.  You can even SET DISPLAY the output
to any X-server (for example, your PC running eXcursions).

re .90:

>I get the impression that the affinity
>program exists to let code flow in the opposite direction (VMS -> NT).

Affinity is all about letting code be developed on NT to the Win32 API's et al
and then deployed on OpenVMS when the need for high performance and availability
warrant it.

>I think this would be especially true for the
>owner of this code (Microsoft).

MicroSoft ought to be interested in getting the Exchange server up on OpenVMS. 
There it can be given higher performance (can't run NT on 96 clustered 12-way
SMP 440MHz Turbolasers) and availability through to disaster tolerance (it would
take a comet strike to take out an FDDI-based multi-site cluster).

re .101, .102:

And, with the design center for Affinity being 3-tiered, you don't even bother
moving the Exchange server to OpenVMS.  Today/right now/no work/off the shelf
instead you just put the data there nice and safe and fast.  How many 1000's of
AlphaServer 4100's running the Exchange server on NT could be served by the huge
OpenVMS cluster I described?  How many millions of end users could use those in
turn?  2-tier don't scale like that!

	RE: .103/102

	I doubt seriously that Microsoft would even entertain the
	notion of Exchange Server on VMS, regardless of the benefits.
	They've got enough to do over the next 2 years with running it
	on Windows NT. "Porting" it to VMS (and that's what it would
	be called) would leave you with a version of Exchange Server
	that Microsoft doesn't want to support. Another "bastard child"
	like Word6 compiled native for Alpha.

	No thanks.

	Now Exchange Client, THAT I'd like to see running on VMS.

							mike

re .104:

You're not listening.  In reply 103 I wrote about leaving the Exchange server on
NT accessing the data on an OpenVMS cluster.  This can be done today/as is
without Microsoft cooperation.

On the other hand, if Microsoft truely wants to call high and get into executive
offices like Digital does then they might want to consider "porting" to a
platform with greater performance and availability opportunities.

    Microsoft's goal is to sell NT across the enterprise and porting
    Exchange Server to VMS would contradict that approach.  Reality is
    Microsoft Exchange server will run on NT (which runs on many different
    Hardware platforms) but the client will run on many  
    platforms/environments including the WEB in the future.
    
    Larry

    
    > On the other hand, if Microsoft truely wants to call high and get into
    > executive offices like Digital does then they might want to consider
    > "porting" to a platform with greater performance and availability
    > opportunities.
    
    Microsoft's intention is to "grow" Windows NT so that it becomes such a
    platform - so far they are on track...

Geesh, is everyone at Digital blinded by Microsoft marketing?  How many years
will it be until NT gets anywhere close to OpenVMS in terms of functions,
availability, performance and installed base into mission critical?  Couldn't we
possibly take advantage of that time?  Other companies would give a lot to have
such a commanding lead.  And OpenVMS ain't standing still either ya know.

Even if Microsoft is dedicated to NT and doesn't want to take that advantage
themselves - surely we ought to look at.  Yes, it is their application and we
can't port it - but we can put the data for Exchange on the fastest, most
available platform in the known universe.

RE: .108

	You're missing a key technical issue. Why would I want to put
	Exchange database files out on a VMS system someplace on a 
	"slow" network link, at the mercy of a network outage?

	Slow being relative to local disk access speeds.

	You entertain a whole new Pandora's box of support hassles by
	putting the key database files (and Exchange email storage IS
	a database) out on a file server. You solve no real problems.

	Sorry, but in this situation, it's a solution looking for a
	problem.

							mike

    re .108
    
    >How many years
    >will it be until NT gets anywhere close to OpenVMS in terms of
    >functions
    
    Isn't this the point of the Affinity program, which should be good news
    for both camps ?
    
    Kevin

    While I'm not going to comment on the wisdom or otherwise of putting
    data out on a pathworks for VMS server, I do notice a sad tendency that
    we seem to be embarrassed to promote our own leading edge technology
    because it is proprietary. 
    
    A while back we were TOO proprietary, and there was a big push to
    "think open". That was good, but I wonder if now we've gone too far the
    other way?
    
    cheers, 
    
    Tony I (UK PC Integration Support with no VMS axe to grind)

re .109:

>Why would I want to put
>Exchange database files out on a VMS system someplace on a 
>"slow" network link, at the mercy of a network outage?

I rarely miss key technical points.  *grin*  Nor am I easily distracted from the
main points.

Noone in their right mind would use an insufficent network.  Building fast
reliable networks is right up our alley.

Why would I want to put Exchange database files on a "slow" NT system subject to
numerous single points of failure?  If the files are on a fast reliable OpenVMS
system connected by a fast reliable network then when (not if) the NT system
fails or is overloaded I can simply use another one and still get to the files. 
Or shall we all wait for NT clusters to get their act together?  Disaster
tolerant NT clusters are due when?

The problem to be solved here is dead obvious; email is a vital business
function - witness the numerous OpenVMS clusters throughout the company running
All-in-1 being accessed via Teamlinks.  My ability to do my job is adversely
effected when that system is not available - customers go waiting.  Replace it
with something less available and those customers will go waiting more - enough
waiting and they'll begin to go to the competition.  How bad do you want to keep
those customers happy?

    re: Note 4775.112 by AMCFAC::RABAHY
    
    > Noone in their right mind would use an insufficent network.
    
    It seems internally, we have no choice.
    
    
    > Building fast reliable networks is right up our alley.
    
    The parable about the cobbler's children having no shoes comes to mind.
    
    
    > Why would I want to put Exchange database files on a "slow" NT system
    > subject to numerous single points of failure?
    
    But unless the database is mirrored, you're putting more single points of
    failure into the equation.
    
    Ken....

>    > Noone in their right mind would use an insufficent network.
>    
>    It seems internally, we have no choice.

Why are you not being allowed to use the Digital Business Network?!  Your
statement indicates a lack of knowledge and a sure lack of experience.
    
>    > Building fast reliable networks is right up our alley.
    
>    The parable about the cobbler's children having no shoes comes to mind.

Not having shoes must mean they were not admitted to school.    
    
>    > Why would I want to put Exchange database files on a "slow" NT system
>    > subject to numerous single points of failure?
>    
>    But unless the database is mirrored, you're putting more single points of
>    failure into the equation.
    
Digital networks are second to none for secure, backed-up data points.

Who do you work for?!

	mikeP

    > Why are you not being allowed to use the Digital Business Network?! 
    > Your statement indicates a lack of knowledge and a sure lack of experience.
    
    His statement indicates the Easynet is at times (for example today)
    more than a tad short of bandwidth.
    
    If the Digital Business Network is something other than the Easynet,
    and has spare bandwidth perhaps we could all share it then :-)
    
    Antonio

    
    	RE: .114 ---
    
    	DTN 225 = HLO = Hudson = ???
    
    	Digital Business Network?  Question to  the author is *who* do 
    	you work for?  
    
        Bandwidth in Digital is hard to come by, gates were
    	opened somewhat in May (after an 18-month hiatus) to catch up with
    	demand, still running near capacity on most Easynet circuits.
    
    
    	Leo

re .113:

>But unless the database is mirrored, you're putting more single points of
>failure into the equation.

Holy smokes, yes, yes, yes - the OpenVMS server would be completely redundant
through to disaster tolerant.  Furthermore, this scheme will eliminate the NT
system as a single point of failure.  If any NT system fails then there'd be
another that could be used in its place instantly with all of the Exchange data
ready to go on the mirrored disks attached to the OpenVMS server cluster.

Perhaps a picture is warranted;

	+-----------+			+-----------+
	| disk farm |			| disk farm |
	+-----------+			+-----------+
		|				|
	+---------------+	   +---------------+
	| OpenVMS Alpha |-- FDDI --| OpenVMS Alpha |
	+---------------+	   +---------------+
		|			|
		|			|
		+------ Network --------+
			   |
			   |
   +---------------+-------+--------------+
   |		   |			  |
+----+		+----+			+----+
| NT |		| NT |		...	| NT |
+----+		+----+			+----+

What's not shown is a quorum site.

RE: .117

	I question how much you know about Exchange internals. I doubt
	seriously that putting the database files out on a file server
	(of any type) is supported.

	No, the best way to address this is future development. You're
	only adding complexity that Microsoft is not willing to support.
	(and it IS there product after all)

								mike

re .117:

Does Exchange also prohibit the use of controller-based storage verses direct
attached?  How in the world would Exchange even know that the storage is on a
file server and not local?

What database is Exchange built upon?  Almost certainly Microsoft's own Access
or SQL Server.  SQL Server inherently supports remote database access.  Through
ODBC that remote database can be an OpenVMS-based Oracle (amoungst others).

Mike, my man, take the bloody blinders off or please step aside before you get
run over.

Because a message sent through Microsoft Exchange took 40 or more hours to
arrive, a lot of people missed my going-away party.  See my 3107.629.

This is within a single building, mind you.

___Pete

    I'm the technical lead for my group, but I'm out of the office more
    than I'm in it.. we have a new co-op student that is working with me,
    and because he arrived recently, he has only an Exchange account (no
    VMSMail).. 
    
    I suggested that we keep in contact via EMail; his response:
    
    "Is there some other way? EMail is really slow here.."
    
    ...tom

    Maybe it would be better to discuss this with your local CCS Exchange
    people.  It probably won't be addressed if they aren't aware of it.
    
    regards,
    Mike

    re .-1
    
    I do not think it is a local exchange problem, I think there are a
    number of problems with exchange that need to be brought to a high
    level so pressure can be put on the vendor of the product or the
    operations people.  If my customers had problems from Digital similiar
    to the problems many of us are having with exchange there would be a
    major confrontational meeting going on by now.
    
    First, when exchange is working well, which is most of the time, it is
    fine.  I find it hard to get too excited over different mail systems,
    that is even less worthwhile than arguments over operating systems or
    editors.
    
    I am even tolerant of the pain in the neck with addresses, the problems
    with sending attachments to other mail systems, and the inability to
    reply to some of the mail that comes via VMS or A1 autoforwards.
    
    I am even understanding of the outages, and the crashes and the
    problems sometimes with connecting to the server because of network
    issues.
    
    And I do not expect email to go instantaneously, if I need to ensure
    someone has something quickly I will use FAX and phone, or ftp and
    phone or VMSMAIL (without nmail) and phone.
    
    And I won;t even get angry that Microsoft, at least for the last few
    versions of word, make it easy for the non techy to send word mail that
    cannot be read properly by someone with a previous version.  Office 97,
    to Office 95 breaks again on some formatting and pictures unless you
    know how to mail as an older version without having to save the file
    and then attach it.
    
    What I am totally intolerant about is messages about potentially lost
    mail.  To me this one is inexcusable.  The sender doesn;t get a
    'bounced mail' or 'failure to deliver' message, and the receiver does
    not get any information about who may have sent any mail that is lost.
    I know we could just send everything with read notification, but that
    shouldn;t be necessary for every mail
    
    I know all mail systems can potentially lose mail or a disk can crash
    before a backup etc., but it seems to be happening more frequently with
    exchange than any mail system I can recall and that goes back to 1970's
    uucp mail, and the original mail-11.
    
    Here is yet another note from our (seriously) hard working and
    dedicated mail people.
    
    >Hi,
    >
    >The HGOEXC1 server has experienced an abnormal system crash at 10:45pm
    >on 24-1-97 (Friday). This incident has been escalated to the corporate
    >and Microsoft. IS has tried the best to fix it in past 24 hours and the
    >system was recovered at 11:00pm on 25-1-97. Some mails might be lost
    >during that period.
    >
    >Best rgds,
    >Wilson
    >Asia Information Services
    >Internet : [email protected]
    >

    
    
    
    [copied from 3107.630]
    
    
    Sorry for you Pete, that most of your friends missed your party.
    However, don't blaim Exchange.
    
    The true problems is our mail gateways between MTS (ALL-IN-1,
    Teamlinks) and Exchange/Internet. They are overloaded at the moment
    and we are adding new gateways.
    
    But the real problems are somewhere else. It's now "standard practice"
    to misuse mail backbone to distribute kits, executables, movie files,
    HUGE presentations etc. If someone send 20 MB file to 10 destination,
    which goes though several gateway over overloaded network in Europe,
    it's no wonder, that there is delays in messaging.
    
    //pasi                

>>    But the real problems are somewhere else. It's now "standard practice"
>>    to misuse mail backbone to distribute kits, executables, movie files,
>>    HUGE presentations etc. If someone send 20 MB file to 10 destination,
>>    which goes though several gateway over overloaded network in Europe,
>>    it's no wonder, that there is delays in messaging.
    
    Excuse me. Could you please explain where you get this impression?
    Do you have any factual data to back it up? I ask because, except
    for PostScript files, I have not seen any significant volume of large
    files being sent through mail. Your statement that it is "standard
    practice" implies you have some information the rest of us (at least
    I myself) don't and I would be interested in knowing if it is true.
    
    --Andrew Gent

    re .240
    
    Surely as you move towards an infrastructure that appears, to the
    enduser, to have mail as the only transfer mechanism then this is bound
    to happen??  
    
    Colin.

> <<< Note 4775.240 by SUTRA::KINNARI "Pasi Kinnari, CCS/ENOC, DTN 828-5624" >>>
>                -< The real problem in messaging at the moment >-
>.......
>    The true problems is our mail gateways between MTS (ALL-IN-1,
>    Teamlinks) and Exchange/Internet. They are overloaded at the moment
>    and we are adding new gateways.
>    
>    But the real problems are somewhere else. It's now "standard practice"
>    to misuse mail backbone to distribute kits, executables, movie files,
>    HUGE presentations etc. If someone send 20 MB file to 10 destination,
>    which goes though several gateway over overloaded network in Europe,
>    it's no wonder, that there is delays in messaging.

Oh, I get it it!  The real problem  with the messaging system is that people
are USING IT TO DO THEIR JOBS!  Wow! What a concept!

I haven't subscribed to VNS in a long time - is this a potential VogonBall?

- tom]

    
    I love this new world...  where email is considered so unreliable and
    delivery time so unpredictable that they FAX things to someone who they
    could have otherwise mailed the information to.
    
    Lots of new bells and whistles (ooh, a pretty picture) but is it really
    an improvement if it's unreliable?
    
    

    
    Reply: -.last few
    
    I work in the group (European Network Operation Center), which is taking 
    care of some these gateways involved. My information is coming from
    troubleshooting and analyzing the problems, which in case of the last
    week, was due to several large files sent through our internal mail
    gateways, which are handling the messages between ALL-IN-1, Exchange
    and Internet.
    
    The reality is, that the network in Europe is overloaded, mostly
    because of moving more and more towards PC oriented infrastructure.
    
    I don't say, that people  should not do their job. But sometime we do
    some things, which sounds very simple and practical. But which actually
    turns out to be a nightmare from the software and service delivery
    point of view. Let's take an example. A person sends a mail from
    Exchange to a user, who has previously used Teamlinks, but now have
    moved to Exchange also. The address is "[email protected]", because
    that has been used always.
    
    First the message goes from Exchange to Internet Mail Relay.
    Then through PMDF to Message Router. There is stored "user@site"
    information, which points back to Exchange, so the same route back 
    (MR->PMDF->IMR->Exchange).
    
    And this is done to send a big document from a person to another, who
    are sitting next to each other ... I would say, that using for example
    PC file sharing would be much easier way to transmit this piece of
    information.
    
    This is a quite extreme example, but can be quite common too. I bet you
    can easily half a dozen similar situations, where the message travels
    several times through network links and gateways and if the messages is
    big, it will block the traffic for several hours.
    
    //pasi
    

|    This is a quite extreme example, but can be quite common too. I bet you
|    can easily half a dozen similar situations, where the message travels
|    several times through network links and gateways and if the messages is
|    big, it will block the traffic for several hours.

	If a message blocks a server it is a design flaw in the server. If
	the network is ill configured, stuff may traverse non-optimal paths
	and clogg up the network. But that should only slow things down,
	not block. I'll configured networks is something we can fix.

	I personally have a hard time understanding why on earth we still have
	problems with mail. We must have invested man centuries in
	understanding these problems by now. And we've probably solved many
	of these problems, too, umpteen times. It is even worse when you
	realize that our use of mail technology at Digital probably has not
	changed much for more than a decade.

	>Per

    
    
    I bet everything is solved, when the transitions from
    ALL-IN-1/Teamlinks/VMSMail to Exchange/SMTP only and from T1/E1/whateverline
    to ATM is done. But this needs cash! So guys, where are your checkbooks
    and the cost centers, it's the need for speed!
    
    //pasi
    
    PS. I started 2 weeks ago in this job, so don't blame me from the
        current infrastructure ;>) But it's not suprise, that during last 5
        years there hasn't been too much investments and now the things
        are exploding a little bit in the hands, because the end user side is
        moving faster then the service.         

  The funny part is, all this stuff *USED TO WORK*. Before the
  Microsoft age was foisted upon us, the mail got through. And
  the files got through. And they got through whether they were
  5K or 5M in size.

  Gosh it's great to have all this new technology!

                                   Atlant

|    I bet everything is solved, when the transitions from
|    ALL-IN-1/Teamlinks/VMSMail to Exchange/SMTP only and from T1/E1/whateverline
|    to ATM is done. But this needs cash! So guys, where are your checkbooks
|    and the cost centers, it's the need for speed!
|    
|    //pasi
|    
|    PS. I started 2 weeks ago in this job, so don't blame me from the
|        current infrastructure ;>) But it's not suprise, that during last 5
|        years there hasn't been too much investments and now the things
|        are exploding a little bit in the hands, because the end user side is
|        moving faster then the service.         

	Don't take my remarks personally. I am not blaming you for the
	infrastructure. My remark tried to highlight that it may not always
	be the stupid users who cause all this. This company has never had
	a unified mail strategy and given its corporate culture, it never
	will either. Co-extistance pains will remain for at least another
	decade. Mark my words.

	Migration pains are mostly self inflicted at Digital.

	>Per

    complaints here sound remarkably like those directed at DECmail &
    ALL-IN-1 (particularly by VAXmail bigots) during the mail wars of the
    early 80s.

    I don't think anyone can deny that we are sending more and larger files
    via our mail servers.  This was a complaint in just the Teamlinks days.
    
    The introduction of the Exchange servers and associated gateways has
    certainly exacerbated the problem. 
    
    Load on the network from Web traffic and Transfer Manager updating PC's
    and laptops may add to some of this as well?
    
    I've noted that handwringing here around slow mail delivery is usually
    followed by an Exchange management message explaining an "incedent" and
    outlining an action plan.
    
    Still, on its best days, Exchange seems noticeably slower at delivering
    short memos that would be a few seconds in ALL-IN-1 or VMSMAIL.
    
    FLAME ON:
    
    Exchange also seems to bog down on the DEC culture of "freight train"
    forwards, each seemingly containing an address list of "everyone who
    might at some point have had an e-mail addres in DEC", and the final
    attachment being an org chart that was out of date before it left the
    first gateway.
    
    At least in ALL-IN-1 we could do an IA and just read the last
    attachment.  This could be approximated in Teamlinks as well.
    
    In Exchange, it seems we need to open up perhaps twenty windows to find
    out we don't care.
    
    Couldn't we have a Mail Transport that forbids forwarding anything that
    comes from Reader's Choice, FGS?  Isn't that what the Choice bit was
    all about?
    
    FLAME ON>
    
    fjp
    

Part of the large file via mail problem is caused by incompatible mail 
and office systems (in and out of DIGITAL) and the resulting resends.

Dave.

> <<< Note 4775.247 by SUTRA::KINNARI "Pasi Kinnari, CCS/ENOC, DTN 828-5624" >>>
>
>    I bet everything is solved, when the transitions from
>    ALL-IN-1/Teamlinks/VMSMail to Exchange/SMTP only and from T1/E1/whateverline
>    to ATM is done. But this needs cash! So guys, where are your checkbooks
>    and the cost centers, it's the need for speed!

Homogenization of the mail systems is NOT the answer we need!
Settling on Exchange will be a stultifying experience that will
only make the next big "improvement" harder to implement and manage.

Yes, we need more bandwidth - mail is carrying more complicated and bloated
message formats and inclusions/attachments.

It is necessary to continue to support multiple mail, network, printing,
and other formats.  Don't put all your eggs in one basket, even/especially
a Microsoft basket.

Technoid exhortation:  Standardize on INTERFACES, not IMPLEMENTATIONS.

- tom]

    
    Exchange/SMTP didn't ment homogenization of the mail systems. It
    included two parts: Exchange and SMTP, and the later means what ever
    Internet friendly (Netscape's mail, Unix clients, you name it).
    
    The only clear thing is, that we will move out from traditional Digital
    mail products (ALL-IN-1, Message Router). VMSmail will propably stay
    longer than the others.
    
    //pasi

    There are a couple of things here that are hurting our network.
    
    First, as has been pointed out, Exchange has bells and such to
    encourage the user to append the word files and so on...therefore more
    large mail.
    
    Second is, how far does the mail have to go?
    When we started implementing IP here in KAO, we had 1 network address.
    As people requested IP we added another (255 systems per) and another,
    all on the same "backbone". This is legal in IP, but not really a good
    idea. For me to send something to the next desk, on the same wire, but
    a different subnet, it has to go to the router. The router does not
    call my unit back and say "Oh, I've resolved that address to the MAC
    and you can send directly to it", instead the arp layer of the stack (I
    think that is where it happens) continues to route the packets to the
    router. In other words there is no "same network" bit or response.
    
    The result is that most of what I move on the network goes out twice.
    Once from me to the router, and again from the router back to my
    neighbour.
    
    Then consider that the exchange server might not be in this building
    (or country for that matter) so when I send Exchange mail - again to my
    neighbour - it may leave the country as I send it and then be
    transmitted again as my neighbour views it. In the VAX day's, most mail
    did not even leave the cluster. It seems that IP and Exchange will both
    require some additional "pipe".
    
    r
    
    

    	Hey, it's only going to get worse!
    
    	What % of the Digital population is now on Exchange?  Of those,
    what % currently realizes that you can send all those wonderful
    spreadsheets etc. as attachements?  This whole thing has to be a
    telco's dream, especially if you charge by the packet!
    
    	I had a user complaining about network response last week, at the
    bottom of her message was a signature that included a 16K DIGITAL logo
    in color.  This took about 20 seconds to get across via my IP tunnel,
    then processing etc.
    
    	Leo

Leo (and others),

Here's one of the major differences bewteen Exchange (and Lotus Notes, I
believe) and other systems:  When you send an attachment to a set of recipients
on an Exchange Server, the server only keeps one copy no matter how many people
get the message.  Likewise, if the recipients are on another server, the
message is forwarded only once.

In VMSMail, the message is sent to (and stored by) each recipient. A 10K file
to 1K users becomes a lot of data.  Unless you make changes to an attachment or
save a local copy, there's one instance per server.  Rather than being more
network-wasteful, it is more efficient.

BobW

>    	I had a user complaining about network response last week, at the
>    bottom of her message was a signature that included a 16K DIGITAL logo
>    in color.  This took about 20 seconds to get across via my IP tunnel,
>    then processing etc.
    
only 16K?  around here we send 90K logos...

-mark

And think about how big the logo would be if it were in all capital letters!

Paul

    	Point is, somehow people have to act a bit wiser (hmmm, net-wise, 
    have I heard that before?) Think globally, act locally?
    
    	Rather than send a worksheet, send a pointer to the sucker on a
    file service.  Rather than use pretty logos on your mail, use something
    relevent (wait until we get scanned pictures of the kids/dog/Harley
    freely circulating).  I think that Reader's Choice has it down pretty
    good to include a WWW pointer rather than text.
    
    	Leo

    re: .254
    
>    Exchange/SMTP didn't ment homogenization of the mail systems. It
>    included two parts: Exchange and SMTP, and the later means what ever
>    Internet friendly (Netscape's mail, Unix clients, you name it).
    
    I have to disagree.
    
    Out here is the field, the message has been clear and unambiguous: You
    will use the specified, proprietary interface (MS Exchange) on the
    supported proprietary operating systems (MS Windows xx) in order to
    receive documents which will frequently be produced by the specified
    proprietary applications (MS Word, etc).
    
    Industry standard, open interfaces need not apply.  We are only
    interested in the one "true" standard:
    
    				Microsoft
    
    -- Russ 
       [a former VMS bigot who now prefers using a truly open multiuser o/s
        which runs on an ever increasing number of hardware platforms and 
        supports TCP/IP and X Windows right out of the box]

Fascinating. I look forward to the next desktop generation, NC - thin 
clients etc, and its affect on network performance.

Brian

    more efficient?  ALL-IN-1's done a one physical copy/many pointers to
    it since the beginning of time (well, almost).
    
    face it - if people want pretty pictures and gooeys, something is going
    to suffer.  maybe someone should invent a character-cell Xchange
    client that works like VMSmail...

    
    When we had a talk from Dan Martin we said about the network and the
    fact that people will send large documents around more than they did
    before.  Even short messages can get quite big.  
    He knew where we were coming from but there weren't plans to spend much
    on the network.  This is my interpretation at least.  
    
    Mike

re Note 4775.263 by DYPSS1::SCHAFER:

>     to suffer.  maybe someone should invent a character-cell Xchange
>     client that works like VMSmail...
  
        Now there's a thought -- if Exchange truly is an "open"
        system, we (or anybody else) should be able to design a
        better Exchange server.  If we did it, we could even build it
        to work both on NT and OpenVMS (as part of the Affinity
        program).  Why not?

        Bob

    Re: attachments
    
    SEND/FOREIGN works too and gets them delivered within a reasonable
    amount of time.

>    SEND/FOREIGN works too and gets them delivered within a reasonable
>    amount of time.
    
    ... but only between VMS systems ...

>>    SEND/FOREIGN works too and gets them delivered within a reasonable
>>    amount of time.
>     ... but only between VMS systems ...

	And in theory to ULTRIX and Digital UNIX systems if the file
	is DDIF and has the right semantics tag on it.

>        Now there's a thought -- if Exchange truly is an "open"
>        system, we (or anybody else) should be able to design a
>        better Exchange server.  If we did it, we could even build it
>        to work both on NT and OpenVMS (as part of the Affinity
>        program).  Why not?

This has already been done! The MAPI Driver for ALL-IN-1 allows you to access 
the ALL-IN-1 shared filing system and mail network from an Exchange client. 

IOSG in Reading, the Engineering group responsible, proposed providing the 
ALL-IN-1 Servers on NT as well as on VMS, but this was rejected "at the 
highest level." Just an example of the Alliance in action?

grahame

RE: <<< Note 4775.269 by ZUR01::ASHG "Grahame Ash @RLE" >>>

>This has already been done! The MAPI Driver for ALL-IN-1 allows you to access 
>the ALL-IN-1 shared filing system and mail network from an Exchange client. 

And the MAPI Driver for MailWorks UNIX (on which the MAPI Driver for ALL-IN-1
is based in part) supports this too, using a MailWorks for UNIX server.
						-- Tom

        Re last two:

        So we aren't faced with the alternatives of an Exchange-based
        corporate mail system that performs inadequately, or
        abandoning Exchange (which, of course, is unthinkable)?  We
        have the capability already to implement a superior mail
        system conforming with Exchange interfaces?

        Bob

    Re: .271
    
    >     So we aren't faced with the alternatives of an Exchange-based
    >     corporate mail system that performs inadequately, or
    >     abandoning Exchange (which, of course, is unthinkable)?  
    
    As much as I am a bigot for our mail products I would have to say
    "abandon" is not to our benefit because our customers are jumping 
    to the MS camp by the truck load and we need to have the experience/
    expertise to sell hardware & service for a product THE customer asks.
    May be "trim it down" is what I would choose.
    
    Dan

RE: <<< Note 4775.271 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 381-0426 ZKO1-1)" >>>

>        We have the capability already to implement a superior mail
>        system conforming with Exchange interfaces?

Well, there are at least three mail servers that could be used with Exchange
(or other MAPI-compliant) clients: Exchange, ALL-IN-1, and MailWorks for UNIX.
As each has strengths and weaknesses, I'll leave the definition of "superior"
to others. 

Note that the compatibility is at the client side. Neither the ALL-IN-1 nor
the MailWorks UNIX server implement the (proprietary) Exchange Server
interface. Instead, MAPI-compliant client-resident service providers (DLLs)
exist which use the (proprietary) ALL-IN-1 and MailWorks UNIX server
interfaces. 
						-- Tom

    And if our experience & expertice indicates the s*** doesn't work?

    
>    As much as I am a bigot for our mail products I would have to say
>    "abandon" is not to our benefit because our customers are jumping 
>    to the MS camp by the truck load and we need to have the experience/
>    expertise to sell hardware & service for a product THE customer asks.

While customers may be moving to non-Digital mail products, their
adoption of Microsoft Exchange is from where I sit more by the
Volkswagen-load; it is Lotus Notes that is being adopted by the
Tractor-trailer load.  For every new Exchange migration I am seeing
10 new Lotus Notes migrations.  If this is representative, then
Exchange expertise qualifies us well to service a niche.

Ram

>If this is representative, then
>Exchange expertise qualifies us well to service a niche.
    
    From where I sit, it's not representative.
    
    Of course, my numbers are not statistically significant (let's see -
    both of my customers will use Exchange, none uses Notes... :-)
    

    
    I was hoping the Digital roll-out was being deployed as a positive
    example for our customers. Unfortunately, I think it will be consigned
    to the "what not to do" category.
    
    Evidence to date:
    
    1. Lack of planning for the future
    	a. estimated capacity loads 	- current state and future trend
        b. estimated content type	- current state and future trend
    	c. changes in product architecture
    
    2. No development or articulation of sensible policy regarding user 
       content management
    3. No guidance to users or communication of mechanisms to allow the
    	most efficient transfer of information
    4. No migration plan from existing systems that values the importance
    of one of Digital's main assets - its information base
    5. A philosophy that puts point product strategy over long-term needs
    of the broader business
    6. No rethink on how to organise appropriate funding for the required
    infrastrcuture under a process of deliberate separation of
    business units.
     
    This situation has nothing to do with Exchange per-se. I have seen
    post-office based systems work way beyond their design capacity. It
    takes planning, attention to infrastructure and support needs and
    very active client liaison. It also takes senior corporate support for
    all of these things (whatever it takes).
    
    The shift to more content rich document parts was happening well before
    Exchange came along. Sensible infrastructure planning would have
    acknowledged this and designed infrastructure accordingly. Active
    guidance on message content (called "communicating with your customers"
    for the service-mentality challenged) forms and the most effective ways
    of transferring them may have been better. 
    
    I doubt your average CEO knows nor cares that there are 3 mail gateways 
    between the Exchange system his secretary sends from and the Teamlinks 
    system he reads it on. 
    Or that she shouldnt have sent by Exchange that Board of Director's 
    Powerpoint presentation to all the BOD explainging why a mail message 
    sent by the new heavily-invested in mail infrastructure caused us to 
    undership a huge order that would have saved the End of year results by 
    Exchange for  tomorrow's meeting because it will stress the infrastructure
    and probably get there after the BOD meeting. Some people must be on
    very shakey ground here regarding their future.
    
    
    No one can build a skyscraper on quicksand.
    
    - John
    
    
    

    I think it was back around 86, when ALL-IN-1 was on a roll, that
    messaging architects repeated over and over again to technical support.
    
    "An Enterprise E-mail system is a critical corporate asset.  Do not
    put in any half baked solutions, thinking you will get a chance to fix
    it later.  People you do not want to meet will notice if there are
    problems."
    
    So: does BP call BG these days saying W-T-F?
    
    
    what say we take out an ad in the WSJ saying:  "Couldn't get it to work,
    we're gonna try Notes?  And just in case, we aren't decommisioning our
    ALL-IN-1 systems just yet!"
    
    FJP
    

    The ad begins:
    
    When "sometime this afternoon, but maybe tomorrow morning" isn't good
    enough...
    
    

>    what say we take out an ad in the WSJ saying:  "Couldn't get it to work,
>    we're gonna try Notes?  And just in case, we aren't decommisioning our
>    ALL-IN-1 systems just yet!"

I wish that were true but I have heard that some locations are turning off VAX
clusters in favor of Exchange.  Getting rid of ALL-IN-1 and OpenVMS.  Ah well.
There is always the phone... if you can get a real person.  Maybe my friend was
right.  We should go back to pencil and paper.  8^)

At least there won't be any more complaining like this in Notes.

	mikeP

    Well here in MRO my Exchange server is down. PC can't connect. This is
    after a fresh reboot of a Celebris 590. 

    Call me paranoid, but the migration to Exchange is, I believe, simply 
    a way to achieve someone's main objective of shutting down all
    Notesfiles in the company. Remember that memo from Ron Glover stating 
    he was going to address "information worker productiviy"? Well, this is
    how!
    
    Ken....

>         <<< Note 4775.272 by ALFSS2::BEKELE_D "When indoubt THINK!" >>>
>            -< we should be a multi-vendor environment ourselves! >-
>    
>    As much as I am a bigot for our mail products I would have to say
>    "abandon" is not to our benefit because our customers are jumping 
>    to the MS camp by the truck load and we need to have the experience/
>    expertise to sell hardware & service for a product THE customer asks.

Your answer presumes that there will be one winner in the marketplace,
and that our survival depends on being on the bandwagon with that one winner.
Your answer also includes reference to "THE customer" (emphasis as presented),
which can be taken that there is total homogeneity in the customer base.
Neither of these cases is true.

But my main point is based on the contention that "...we need to have 
the experience/expertise to sell hardware & service for a product..."
ands its apparent conclusion that the only way we can gain this experience
is through a real-time experiment on a 50,000 person workforce.

Are we such poor engineers and business planners that we must subject
OUR ENTIRE WORKFORCE to the whims of the moment to see or demonstrate
whether the third-party product we're pushing will work?
And when we change third parties, then what?

Digital's culture has always allowed experimentation in infrastructure
adoption.  As facets of infrastructure have matured, there has been
convergence to common bases across large parts of the corporation,
but not necessarily the whole corporation.  For example, for mail the 
technical community generally settled on VMS mail and DCL, the business 
community on All-in-1.
Even in those communities there were islands of diversity, so the Unix
crowd and early-adopter web and desktop crowds had their own systems.
Each of the minorities was still large enough to develop or adopt the 
tools that would allow them to communicate with the majority (gateways).
Enforced homogeneity will suppress experimentation AND force the islands
of diversity that must remain (for their own good business reasons)
to lack the critical mass that they need to develop or adopt the next 
generation of gateways.

I used the word "stultifying" in an earlier reply.  That still applies,
as does "stagnating."

I am definitely NOT an advocate of the "sell what you use, use what you sell"
school of thought, UNLESS we are doing exactly the same jobs as our 
customers in the same way.
NO business is homogeneous even within itself to adopt tools of the 
homogeneity that is being advocated in a whole-enterprise switch of e-mail.

Reply .277 defends diversity on some excellent business grounds, better
than I have recounted here.  Pass it on.

- tom]

    W-T-F -> "What the f***!"
    
    I hope, (and actually expect) that Exchange will become more reliable
    when it matures a version more or so.  Particular when it can work
    better in an NT Cluster environment.
    
    I expect transport to get more reliable and quicker as more users are
    found directly in Exchange AND mail gets addressed with Exchage address
    rather than MTS type addressing.
    
    Oh, I am quite aware that we are indeed shutting down ALL-IN-1 engines
    around the country.  The first go are "halves" of the site server
    clusters that made it some of the geographies.
    
    I just agree with others that we are rushing headlong into an
    environment, or at least an infrastructure that does not map well to
    our business requirements.
    
    Most of our e-mail is: text, short and time critical A lot of our mail
    has multiple forwards to large DL's.  (Perhaps the planners don't see
    this vexing problem because they "start" the "freight trains"?)
    
    We have better ways to distribute large files to large numbers of
    people than e-mail. 
    
    As e-mail "experts", given carte-blanche, would we recommend Exchange
    to ourselves?
    
    FJP

<><><><><><><><>  T h e   V O G O N   N e w s   S e r v i c e  <><><><><><><><>

 Edition : 3733               Friday 31-Jan-1997            Circulation :  3754 

        VNS MAIN NEWS .....................................  144 Lines
        VNS COMPUTER NEWS .................................  269   "


VNS COMPUTER NEWS:                            [Tracy Talcott, VNS Computer Desk]
==================                            [Nashua, NH, USA                 ]

 Microsoft - Microsoft Network review
	{The Wall Street Journal, Personal Technology column, 30-Jan-97, p. B1}
	{By: Walter S. Mossberg}
   "Microsoft now has a second change to make a go of its on-line service.  The
 software giant is hoping angry consumers will see the Microsoft Network as a
 possible alternative to the shaky performance of its main rival, America
 Online.
	.
	.
	.
   Installing MSN take much longer than installing AOL.  I found the
 installation went generally well, except for the e-mail portion, which I had
 to set up manually on my test machine after the installation program failed to
 do so.
   E-mail is, in fact, a big problem for MSN, at least for now.  The new
 version still relies on Microsoft's balky, complex Exchange e-mail system,
 which is a corporate product, not a  standard Internet e-mail program.  MSN
 plans to switch in April to a much cleaner, quicker e-mail program designed
 expressly for the Internet.  But until then, MSN is saddled with a clumsier
 e-mail system than AOL's.
	.
	.
	.

Oh, and if we're gonna talk specifics about Exchange....

I run my desktop on a Mac, which supports an Exchange client.
Score +1 for interoperability, but that Exchange client on my system
uses 9.8MB of RAM when installed.  Not 9.8MB of disk space, 9.8MB of RAM.
It's the largest single application I use, and an e-mail client is the kind
of thing you want to have running all the time.

- tom]

    Sounds like a MAC problem to me ;-)  Are you sure your information is
    not for "virtual memory" rather than physical memory?
    
    Only 2.4 Mb on NT Intel (compare Netscape at 4+ Mb)
    

    Well, exchange has been dead all day so far in England. If I hadn't
    still got a VaxMail account, I'd be totally cut off (on customer site
    99.9% of the time).
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    A couple of points of interest, from research I've been doing on this
    subject.
    
    ALL-IN-1 does work, by the way.  For host-based email, it's the world
    leader (23.6%, or 7 million mailboxes, vs. 20.2% for OfficeVision).
    
    Lotus Notes, a LAN-based (post office) product, has about 9.5% of that
    LAN-based market or about 4.5 million mailboxes, making it fourth after
    cc:Mail (19.2%), Microsoft Mail (19.2%), and Novell Groupwise (11.6). 
    Notes is growing, as is Exchange, and don't tend to show up on the map
    as readily yet due to the time lag in market research - the point is
    that there are other major player besides Exchange.
    
    They all support POP3, incidentally, and plan to (or already do)
    support IMAP4 for accessing Internet-based email on hosts like OpenVMS. 
    I think the Internet angle is our key to integration in this segment -
    but we have some catching up to do yet (IMAP4).
    
    It's a shame that our internal Exchange implementation is so problematic,
    but useful nevertheless.  In many respects it may simply indicate that
    we are moving in the same direction as many of our customers, albeit
    perhaps ahead of them.  It may represent an opportunity to learn by our
    experience and pass that on to our customers.  Or, at least I think we
    should.
    
    For one thing, like many other companies it sounds like we need a
    great deal more technical expertise on NT and Exchange, and more tools
    and guidelines for connecting environments like that to environments
    like ours.
    
    As a vendor, the worldwide shortage of NT and Exchange expertise works
    in our favor, for now, because customers will hesitate to migrate away
    from us and toward a platform they can't support - but we have to hurry
    to make the two environments work together before the opportunity
    passes, expertise becomes plentiful, and customers have one more big 
    reason to abandon VMS completely.
    
    tim
    

    
    >> It may represent an opportunity to learn by our
    >> experience and pass that on to our customers.  
    
    Except for the fact that the field organization chartered to provide
    these services to our customers (NSIS) is not involved AT ALL in the
    internal Exchange conversion project.
    
    Go figure...
    
    \dave 

|    Except for the fact that the field organization chartered to provide
|    these services to our customers (NSIS) is not involved AT ALL in the
|    internal Exchange conversion project.
    
    Well, I don't think it would be practical to use the internal
    implementation as a means to train field NSIS personel while
    simultaneously trying to implement it.  I think the implementation
    itself is challenging enough without adding that additional load to
    carry.  What I'm suggesting is that our implementors (CCS?) will have
    many valuable experiences from this process that we can apply to a
    Service product (e.g. Electronic Mail Integration Services).  We can
    then train NSIS to deliver the service, based on those experiences as
    well.
    
    It's not practical to train the field in an expertise that we have not
    yet completely mastered.  In the mean time, we tend to struggle through
    the learning process.
    
    tim
    

    	The CCS technology folks often sit in and consult on stuff like
    this, at least did at one time.  I personally have spent many hours at 
    customer sites doing "knowledge tranfers".  I don't think the role
    should be applying the internal implemenation verbatim to a customer,
    but mapping the customer needs around the problems experienced here.
    
    	Leo

    We have had both CCS Technology and Strategy folk into my customer,
    working closely with NSIS.  The sharing of experience has been greatly
    appreciated.  To their credit, CCS and IS are not bashful about sharing
    the warts and "what not to do's"
    
    FJP

For what I read in the multiple replies here, I get the impression that 
mostly everyone is objecting to the move from ALL-IN-1/VAXmail to a PC 
LAN based mail system. I'm venturing to say, without first hand 
knowledge, that we would have similar issues if we had moved to Lotus 
Notes or any other type of PC mail environment.

This to me is similar to our past efforts to convince our customer that 
they should stay with VMS, sorry, OpenVMS and not move to UNIX or NT. 
Even if everyone accepts the technical superiority of OpenVMS, the 
market is now CLient/Server (read PC/server) driven and regardless of 
the technical elegance of the solution, you better get on the bandwagon, 
or it it will leave without you.

We Digital are no good at selling what we don't use, just look at our 
effort to be a significant player in the UNIX market over the years. The 
company has bet that the in its future NT will be a top player, so, 
regardless of the learning pains we are going through, moving our 
systems from OpenVMS-based systems to an NT systems is the right thing 
to do.

Just my 2 centavos

/OLD

RE: .295

	I hate to be cynical, but really, we aren't that great at
	selling what we DO use.

							mike

Re:  Migration tool for ALL-IN-1/DECMAILworks/VMSMAIL (in development) users:



NEWS RELEASE 

 DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION CHOOSES I/G OPENWARE
  SOFTWARE FOR ITS MIGRATION TO MICROSOFT EXCHANGE 

       Direct-TO-1tm Software Available to all Digital Employees Worldwide

West Chester, PA, January 21, 1997 - I/G OpenWare, Inc. today announced 
that Digital Equipment Corporation of Maynard, Massachusetts has purchased 
an enterprise license for I/G's Direct-TO-1 for Microsoft Exchangetm software. 
Under terms of the purchase, all Digital employees worldwide will be able to 
use I/G's Direct-TO-1 software to help in their migration to Microsoft Exchange.

Direct-TO-1 for Microsoft Exchange is a PC software application designed to 
provide an easy-to-use method for migrating documents from Digital's ALL-IN-1tm
and MailWorkstm e-mail products to Microsoft Exchange. Direct-TO-1 gives 
Microsoft Windowstm users the ability to selectively move messages and 
documents in their ALL-IN-1 or MailWorks file cabinet to their Microsoft 
Exchange message store while maintaining electronic mail header information, 
attachments, and documents in a single step and at their own pace. In addition,
Direct-TO-1 converts word processing documents and attachments such as 
WPS-PLUStm files to the user's PC word processor such as Microsoft Wordtm. 
As part of the agreement with Digital, I/G OpenWare will also develop a 
version of Direct-TO-1 to migrate OpenVMStm Mail messages to Microsoft Exchange.

"Digital is in the process of migrating over 40,000 mailboxes and millions 
of messages from ALL-IN-1, MailWorks and OpenVMS Mail to Microsoft Exchange. 
Direct-TO-1 met our critical requirements of moving user files with minimal IT 
support staff involvement, easy-to-use functionality, and the ability to 
maintain the usability of the user's messages and documents once migrated to 
the Exchange environment," said Mike Grady, Digital's Global Exchange 
Technology Program Manager.

"Many companies are in the process of considering a migration to Microsoft 
Exchange from Digital's e-mail family of products. As they develop migration 
plans they are trying to determine the best way to protect a very valuable 
asset - electronic information stored in user file cabinets.
We are pleased that Digital has confirmed the value of Direct-TO-1 as a 
critical component for a successful migration to Exchange," said Steve Martin, 
President of I/G OpenWare.

I/G OpenWare, Inc., an Ioele/Griggs company, specializes in the development 
of multi-platform client/server software solutions and utilities. I/G OpenWare 
also performs software engineering outsourcing and multi-platform software 
porting. Headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania, the company has an 
additional office in Nashua, New Hampshire.

Digital Equipment Corporation is a world leader in open client/server solutions 
from personal computing to worldwide information systems. Digital's scaleable 
Alpha and Intel platforms, storage, networking, software and services, together 
with industry-focused solutions from business partners, help organizations 
compete and win in today's global marketplace.

NOTE: Contact our Internet Web Site located at http://www.iga.com or 
[email protected] for more information.

                                   ###

 Trademarks: 
            Direct-TO-1 and I/G OpenWare are trademarks of I/G OpenWare, 
Inc. The
            I/G logo is a trademark of I/G Enterprises, Inc. 

            ALL-IN-1, Digital, MailWorks, OpenVMS and WPS-PLUS are 
trademarks
            of Digital Equipment Corporation. 

            Microsoft is a registered trademark and Microsoft Exchange and 
Microsoft
            Word are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation.

    ...and like it or not, neither ALL-IN-1 nor certainly VMSmail are
    state-of-the-art mail systems anymore...
    
    But I agree - we'd be in deep stuff no matter what LAN-based (or even
    Internet-based) mail system we were switching to - except maybe PMDF,
    which I've heard lots of good stuff about.
    
    It was gonna be messy any way we went about it.  We just have to figure
    out how to smoothe it out so we can show customers before they start
    calling them Turbo-Anchors
    
    tim
    

    
    Re: .283
    
>            -< we should be a multi-vendor environment ourselves! >-
>    

> Your answer presumes that there will be one winner in the marketplace,

You presumed wrong! If you instead read/comprehend the title of my note 
it suggests no such conclusion.  If fact, in my note I stated "trim it down" 
which you conviniently left out.
    
> Your answer also includes reference to "THE customer" (emphasis as presented),
> which can be taken that there is total homogeneity in the customer base.

Huh?

> But my main point is based on the contention that "...we need to have 
> the experience/expertise to sell hardware & service for a product..."
> ands its apparent conclusion that the only way we can gain this experience
> is through a real-time experiment on a 50,000 person workforce.

These are your conclusions.  The decision is already made and not by a peon
like me. 

Dan

    RE: .298
    
    Ioele/Griggs hired on a LOT of former Digital ALL-IN-1 people 
    who got tapped during the multiple TFSO's.  I know several of 
    them from the Washington, DC area - and they are doing VERY 
    well at I/G, thank you.  I have little doubt that their 
    migration product will make them a bundle.  
    
    As a personal note, I have been at Digital for 13 years.
    I have used ALL-IN-1 for about 10 years.
    I used to be an ALL-IN-1 Consultant delivering customized 
    applications written in ALL-IN-1 scripts (there is a large 
    insurance company in Baltimore that produces/manages all 
    of their insurance policies in ALL-IN-1 - an application 
    that myself and 3 others wrote).
    I know that very few people left in this company have the 
    slightest clue about the power of what you can do with 
    ALL-IN-1 coding.  Most think of it only as a character-based 
    mail system.  That part of it is only the tip of the ice-berg.
    It was also a development language that integrated forms, word 
    processing, mail, a database engine, scheduling, query tools, etc.
    
    ALL-IN-1 was a major cash cow for DEC, but Digital has killed it.
    I NEVER lost a mail message with ALL-IN-1.  It has been kicked, 
    and cursed, and badmouthed by many who never really understood it.
    But it works, and it works well.  We had other superior mail products 
    in the wings, that too have been killed by the Digital higher-ups.
    
    I view us as a company that has lost it's vision for creating 
    superior software products and dominating the market.  Oh, well,  
    bring on Exchange so we can all just sit around waiting for our mail...

re Note 4775.301 by NEWVAX::POWELL:

>     I view us as a company that has lost it's vision for creating 
>     superior software products and dominating the market.  

        The view from where I have been is that while we may have
        created many "superior software products" we rarely (there
        were exceptions, a few) succeeded in "dominating the market"
        in software.

        The formation of AltaVista Software is the latest attempt to
        solve this problem.

        Bob

    I would say that, regardless of Digital's vision, our software products
    (surperior or otherwise) only dominated the VAX VMS market.  When that 
    growth market went away, so did the market perception of Digital as a
    software company.
    
    There are very few examples of Digital software investments leading on
    non-Digital platforms (although there certainly are bright spots).
    
    I would seem software funding (and marketing) are typically driven by
    VAX and Alpha sales.  

    This is where 20-20 hindsight comes in. We could have taken these folks
    mentioned earlier (A1 developers) and (combined with the strategy that
    DIGITAL would rely on Exchange for mail) spun off another AltaVista
    like company to do Exchange support products.
    
    That would put some leadership into the Exchange migration, as we would
    be growing a new cash cow as we went! Instead we are buying
    services/software from someone else.
    
    Ugh!
    r
    
    

RE: .304

	Digital as a whole already has leadership in Exchange 
	migration and implementation. Do we need to have these
	resources in-house? After the migration is done, what
	do we do then?

						mike
				working in a group that is adding
				on to Exchange. (a.k.a.: long term revenue)

    re: 236 - the almost missed party
    
    Seems like someone sent this info along to PC Week.  In the 2/3/97
    issue, in the Spencer F. Katt Rumor Central section on page 142,
    there is a nice paragraph on our Exchange problems, and the 
    delay in mail delivery and almost missing the party.
    
    Mark
    

Re .306:

"
The Mouser hears that Digital Equipment is still working out the kinks in its
system as it migrates to Microsoft Exchange. How slow is the service? How about
this, Robespierre: It's taking some messages 40 (count 'em, 40) minutes to reach
their destinations. The piece de resistance came after one Digital employee was
left almost alone at his going-away party.  Seems the party invitation got stuck
somewhere in cyberland.
"
				/AHM

	That's ok.... yesterday morning I sent out a flurry of individual 
messages to a lot of different people using regular vms mail. They got
delivered after 2:00am this morning. So exchange may be slow... but yesterday
vms mail was slower. Oh... even the CC's took until 2:00am to get to me. 



Glen

>	That's ok.... yesterday morning I sent out a flurry of individual 
>messages to a lot of different people using regular vms mail. They got
>delivered after 2:00am this morning. So exchange may be slow... but yesterday
>vms mail was slower. Oh... even the CC's took until 2:00am to get to me. 
    
    VMS mail is either instantaneous (i.e. active end-to-end connection)
    or you get notified that the destination is unreachable. You may
    have been using NMAIL for queuing, of course, but that's an
    unsupported add-on.

using vms mail one should always use nmail..... :-)

    to get the "advantages" of (maybe)-store-and-(maybe)-forward, eh?
    
    Chuck

    Store and forward mail is an absolute necessity in modern networks. 
    Whether it's nmail or x.400 or smtp-based or whatever, you can't get by
    without it.  The example of nmail taking so long is a good point.  It
    isn't necessarily just Exchange that's having the problem, if the
    destination isn't reachable.  VMSmail alone would have been worse -
    because the sender would have had to sit there and retry until it got
    through - possibly for hours.
    
    tim
    

> Store and forward mail is an absolute necessity in modern networks. 

It's one thing to have the rare failing cases take a while.  It's
quite another to take *common cases* (e.g. people in a "workgroup"
type environment) from being instantaneous to taking an extended
period of time...

If most of people's mail falls in the latter category, paying a large,
fixed time overhead is *not* the right answer...

> VMSmail alone would have been worse -
>    because the sender would have had to sit there and retry until it got
>    through - possibly for hours.

Of course, the way many people use VMS mail is to try a direct connect,
and 99% of the time it works.  In the 1% where it doesn't, you get
an immediate choice to either re-send using NNmail, or take some
other action that may get through in spite of the lack of service
(e.g. call.)  Store/forward with no indication of mail progress
for all messages loses potentially useful information.  (Delivery
doesn't ensure the person has seen it, but non-delivery ensures
they haven't...)
 

    
    I never use NMAIL except for distribution lists, and when an attempt to
    mail something fails.  I have a relatively high degree of confidence
    that the mail was delivered (if it's a VMS system) and usually get a
    timely notification of a problem on mail bound outside of the enet.
    
    

	I have found with nmail when it kicks something back saying it didn't
get through, it isn't always the case. If it does it instantly, yes. But I've
had mail that got kicked back that people have said they got. Maybe its's just
my system.... :-)

At ISU a couple of weeks ago, we were told of the customer where sending mail 
from someone to the person in the next cubicle went half way around the country 
(US) and took 13 hours.

PJDM

Yesterday I heard that Exchange mail delays in the UK were partly due to 
being routed via the U.S.! Perhaps someone stateside is checking what the 
"flexible workforce" has to say?

Dave ;-)

    re: Note 4775.307 by DECCXX::AMARTIN
    
    Whoever fed Spence this info got it wrong. The message being discussed
    took 40 HOURS, not minutes. Forty minutes is actually quite good,
    considering the performance these days.
    
    Ken....

This is probably a nit to most people, but it really bugs me!

My last name, as you can see, is Zimmermann, that's zimmermaNN.  My family
has battled all our lives, to insure is it spelled correctly.  I've missed
mail within Digital (ALLIN1) as it was sent to Mark ZimmermaN, so I asked that
an alias be added for me with the wrong spelling.

Well, in 1997, moving to an NT server, for exchange, I am told my name must
be spelled with one N, as my username is Zimmermanma (only allowed 11
characters, and I must be unique).  OK, within Digital, I will still be
'Mark Zimmermann', but my internet address is spelled WRONG!

Again, maybe a nit, but this is 1997, is NT really limited to 11 characters,
I don't believe that it is!

Mark  (aka ZimmermaNma)

    NT usernames can be up to 20 characters. It can even contain spaces or
    dots (but can't be only spaces and/or dots). Umlauts are allowed, as
    has been previously stated here.
    
    Don't know what restrictions e.g. Exchange places upon usernames.
    

	First name can be up to 32 characters.

	Last name can be up to 64 characters.

	Alias name can be up to 64 characters.

	I don't know what that person in CCS is smoking, but I'd tell
	them to pound sand and give you what you want. Take it up with
	their supervisor.

							mike

    Yeah...
    
    My account in DIGITAL2 is JAERVINENO while it could as well be
    J�rvinenO or better yet, J�rvinen Ora... (if they insist on putting the
    last name first).
    
    I find the current method extremely confusing - as the names obviouusly
    must be unique, you can't know how many characters at the end are
    derived from the first name(s). If the name in question is foreign (to
    you), it's hard to tell what the persons last name really is...
    

The problem with these usernames and Internet addresses is all tied to the
basic (stupid?) choices made somewhere very early planning stages.

First of all, account names have to be unique across whole Digital. (This
is fairly reasonable). Why are account names then restricted to 11 characters?

Here in FNO, on our ould systems we used to have "standard" and that had
produced

	Name			VMS/LM account		LM share
	Pauli Karjalainen	PKARJALAINEN		PKARJALA.INE
	Hannu Karjalainen	HKARJALAINEN		HKARJALA.INE
	Jani Karjalainen	JKARJALAINEN		JKARJALA.INE
	Joonas Karjalainen	KARJALAINEN		KARJALAI.NEN

(Joonas was last to come but account name KARJALAINEN has originally 
belonged to URPO KARJALAINEN, alternative would have been JOKARJALAINEN, with
LM share JOKARJAL.AIN).

Now, the 11 characters restriction maybe comes from the need to have unique
LM share names easily deductible from LM account names. Hence we now have

	Pauli Karjalainen	KARJALAINE	
	Hannu Karjalainen	KARJALAINEN
	Joonas Karjalainen	KARJALAINEJ
	
Apparently Jani does not yet have account in Digital2. 

And the Internet addresses! Well, they need to be unique. Address space is
flat, i.e. [email protected].  Firstname.Lastname would not do as they
are quite a few John Smith e.q. All these must have already unique NT account
name, hence a bit too simple choice to use

	nt-account @mail.dec.com


OF course, the traditional alternative would have to use non-flat address
space, e.q. including location code and continue with

	[email protected]

But this was not invented by our CCS NT-people, (NIH principle in force maybe)
and it would have been too much like

	[email protected]


As the brave new wolrd (DigitalN domains etc.) does not yet have personal file
shares, printing services etc. I HAVE TO CHANGE 85% of our LM account names
and LM shares in order to allow users migrating to Digital2 still continue 
printing and filingthrough my OpenVMS cluster. And X.400 service is not there.
And when it will, it won't be similar multitarget usable service to which we
are used to.

If I were customer or consultant, based on my experience with this migration,
I'd NEVER buy Digital or recommend Digital when it comes to Exchange/WNT stuff.
Maybe Digital has some real expertise on these areas but it just does not show
up with this case!

_veli

    	I think the implementation done for Exchange usernames etc. was
    done by those with little experience in the real world.  The internet
    username must be unique but some intelligence (thought?) should have
    been put into it so that only a last name would not be used.  Not bad
    with my last name (Fedor), but more common ones should have done from
    the start (Smith, Kelly, there's even 2 surname "Beauregard" in
    DIGITAL1, one as the surname only, one with surname plus first
    initial).  I fought with the access people in MRO when they were doing
    this, didn't win.  
    
    	I too have been going crazy with mapping access on VMS servers to
    domain usernames.  Do have a method though, contact me offline if you
    are interested.
    
    	Leo

        Leo,
        
        As it happens to be, I also pointed out most of our current
        problems when I saw first drafts of account naming standards.
        Needless to say, our brand new WNT expert did not either
        understand the issues, did not listen or did not bother to
        forward issues.
        
        Just today, he asks me to go through renaming NIEMINEN  (Timo)
        to something else on a number of OpenVMS servers in order to
        resolve conflict with NNIEMINEN (Nina) having account NIEMINEN
        at DIGITAL2. It just did not occur to him that simply renaming
        (Nina) NIEMINEN to NIEMINENN would be far more simpler approach
        and at least leave me far more simple way to deal with the
        problems.
        
        Needless to say, I am just fed up with our WNT/Exchange people.
        They appear to be bunch of arrogant and unexperienced people
        unwilling to negotiate with other people. There just is not any
        way to have coexistence of "old stuff" and this new WNT/Exchange
        on the same network.
        
        Maybe we need to two Digital, one so called "classic Digital"
        and one so called "MS-Digital", with chairman Bill Gates.
        
        
        _veli
        

    	I did have some luck with getting the names changed after a few
    memos and phone calls, the people doing it never thought of it. 
    
    	We went through this 6-7 years ago when we were rolling up Areas 
    in the US to regions, at that time it became apparent that having the 
    name "SMITH" anywheres was not a good thing, but that some type of 
    relevent but inique naming based on something thought out a far better 
    idea.  Too bad nobody asked... 
    
    	One of the customers I worked with solved it by using their
    personnel numbers (UPI - Uniform personnel identifier) and then
    managing SoftSwitch on top of it to make it work.  
    
    	When the NT world changes from domains to directory services we'll get
    another chance :*)
    

    	OK, you syntax and spelling bigots out there, correct the title I
    left for .326.
    
    

    Do it yourself, Leo
    
    

    	No, I meant "freely offer your corrections and comments :*)", see more
    than a few other threads about this.

    	Another thing came to mind...  just when we had most of the PWRK
    access settled, someone decided that contractors needed a different
    naming convention.  We started getting calls "I can't access... and I
    could on Friday...".  Turns out they made them from
    {something-like-lastname} to C-{lastname}, this of course the last
    thing they all mentioned.
    
    	A moving field of battle, perhaps?

        But it is not only contractors, also temps get C-... It is so
        "fun" to do all these changes e.q. when temps become
        "permanent". Of course nobody bothered to me so I could change MTS
        redirects and so  mails bounced back after three temps became
        permanent.
        
        _veli
        

    Resist, Resist!
    
    The naming conventions are stupid!  They could not really have been
    very much worse if we had been left to total anarchy.  
    
    I would like to offer some encouragement though.  Demand that you have
    your family name as your NT logon name.  Be prepared to nominate a
    variation *ONLY* if it is already taken.   Do the same for your SMTP
    style name in mail.dec.com   
    
    I went through these trials with CCS and got mine changed.  They will
    listen to reason if you are polite and persistent.  I am still 
    quietly fighting the "[email protected]" battle though.
    
    /Chris/

    re .332 "demand family name as"
    
    IMHO this is part of the problem. With this many users, the probability
    of a "last name conflict" is better than not, so everyone should start
    out with at least one initial appended to the last name. To make it
    more readable it should be "lastname_i". Prepending the first initial
    seems silly to me as you can never be sure about "William" vs. "Bill".
    
    r
    

>   IMHO this is part of the problem. With this many users, the probability
>   of a "last name conflict" is better than not, so everyone should start
>   out with at least one initial appended to the last name.

There are only about twenty Tsuks in the world, and I'm the only one
who works at Digital.  I've had the username "tsuk" all my life, and
never once had a conflict.  We people with weird names should get 
*something* for having to spell them continually!

					-Michael Tsuk

    I know Fulcrum uses exchange and they use
    [email protected]
    
    

What I find most annoying is guessing at how to send mail to
people I know. It makes a big difference if someone is entered
as Mike rather than Michael f'instance. What a pain! It won't even
list the Michaels under the same last name if you guessa and use
Mike to look for the person. liesl

    Speaking of delivery times, last Thursday I sent myself Exchange mail
    from Exchange mail and it took 7 hours.
    
    I'm not even going to go into the problem of having the same firstname
    and lastname as someone else in this company - let's just say that I
    forward several misdirected mails a day. I copy the sender so they can
    figure it out and send it to the right person the next time. Don't get
    me wrong, I don't mind forwarding the mail, I just don't want to have
    some time-critical mail sitting in my Exchange box when the intended
    recipient waits for it.
    
    Thanks for letting me vent. 8-}
    
    Patrick_I_am_NOT_the_Attorney_McMahon

    anyone know anyone at Microsoft?  Why don't we ask em how THEY do it?
    
    I tried looking up Bill Gates internet address to see if it was
    bill.gates.msn.com or some such....but no luck.
    
    chet

Microsoft typically uses names of the form [email protected].

			Steve

So we have a typical Digital situation here.

1. The current domain/username structure sucks.
A guy two cubicles away (Canberra Australia)
keeps getting Win Popup notifications which
should really go to a person with the same
username in the Digital2 domain (at REO).
We're still in our "own" domain here, not using
Exchange yet. This stuff up was almost certain
to happen given the flat domain structure which
we "chose".

2. The flat mail addressing structure sucks.
In the above case, my colleague (I'll call
him John Doe) tried to contact the person
for whom the messages were intended. BIG problem.
They were intended for Stephen Doe (at REO).
Unfortunately there are two Stephen Does @REO.
So is the one we're looking for [email protected]
or Doe [email protected] ??

OK, enough about the problem. But is there a
solution in sight? We can complain in here until
our fingers bleed, but I've seen no evidence that
anyone who could address the problems is reading.
You know how it is with a problem. Ask AA. The
first step is to acknowlege that you have a problem.

So who is in a position to take action on this?

    Here's a beauty of a message to find in your Exchange Inbox:
    
    ====================================================================
    Your message did not reach some or all of the intended recipients.
    
          Subject:	FW: LS 120 driver for NT 3.51
          Sent:	11/4/96 3:12:24 PM
    
    The following recipient(s) could not be reached:
    
          [email protected] on 11/4/96 3:17:23 PM
                Remote could not copy the local message to the server for
    submission.  Network problems are preventing connection to the
    Microsoft Exchange Server computer.
    =======================================================================
    
    Look at the date that I sent that message. I just got the non-delivery
    notification on 2/4/1997!!!! Yikes! 90 days later???? I'm not
    impressed. :-(
    
    Harry
    
    

    
    I now know exactly how much disk space is on a system in Reading,
    without even having to enquire. A popup comes up to tell me so, as
    often as 30 times a day (its currently running at 18% utilisation, by
    the way). For those who are spatially challenged, Reading is in England
    (which is kind of near Europe but is in denial of that fact) while
    Canberra is in Australia, a larger,  drier island in the opposite
    hemisphere. I cant even imagine where the \\DMO system that sends me
    even more alerts comes from.
    
    What is my crime? my name is Baker. WINS insists on a unique user name
    for each person world wide.
    
    When I was consulting to a 100000 person Organisation on IT Infrastructure
    the Chief of the Defence Forces had the same name as me, John Stuart Baker.
    It was a source of constant fun and amusement. But hey, guess what, their 
    mail and Lan systems could cope with the concept. I designed the common 
    naming scheme and mappings for their X.500, DNS, Novell Directory Services
    ...So its with some humour that I am now the victim of a poor naming
    scheme.
    
    The chance of a conflict increases with the scale of the organisation.
    A lot of little companies start with first name [email protected]. The
    next annie to come along gets really peeved. Microsoft built their
    naming scheme when they were 15K people big. It has a little more
    context, again built into the name, not the addressing, but they have
    to compromise often now as each new person joins. Digital originally chose 
    a scheme that had locational context in the addess part
    	[email protected]
    and accounts had just a little less context, since they were by system
    and username.
    
    This does not resolve the conflict always of course, as said previously
    there are 2 Stephen Does in REO. However, we dont get a conflict  half
    way around the world even if one of them was a john doe
    	[email protected]
    The chance of going to some unnatural addressing scheme is minimised
    the smaller the unit of concern.
    
    By way of example, for the Australian Defence Forces, there were:
    	71 Smiths
    	of those, 7 R Smith
    	of those, 2 R.C Smith
        of those, 1 R.C Smith in the military
    	the other was a civilian and a very senior manager
    In other words, for a large company, there would be more Smiths than
    staff in a smaller company. 
    
    The CCS person is currently trying to persuade the other Doe to change
    his name. I think I may lose. 
    
    How come we have accepted this mess? It is fairly obvious we are
    designing a IS infrastructure for a maximum of 30K people (why does
    this scare me). Certainly the naming schemes appear targeted at that
    size population.
    
    I just hope there are a few more Palmers in Digital so this gross
    inanity can get some focus. When Bob gets a "popup attack" he may
    discover what a dud infrastructure is being created.  
    
    - John (Doe).
    p.s I have offered to change my name by deed poll to Vladimir Xavier
    Zxxxcuyzirx, if it would help.
    
    

    �p.s I have offered to change my name by deed poll to Vladimir Xavier
    �Zxxxcuyzirx, if it would help.
    
    That might help with Exhange, but it might discourage people from
    calling you - how do you pronounce Zxxxcuyzirx?   ;-)
    
    BTW, ELF shows 25 Palmers, three of them Bobs and one Robert.

Re .342

Should I feel left out because I am not getting that mail?

    re: .342
    
    Are you logged into your NT system as Administrator?  If so, that's
    why you get the messages.  If you create a user account, and use that,
    the message notifications will go away.

    re .345: Why should even an administrator in a different domain,
    receive these? And at least .342 didn't mention being an administrator.
    
    In VMS, I can always do a REPLY/DISABLE even when I'm logged in as a
    system mangler...
    

>  how do you pronounce Zxxxcuyzirx?   ;-)

Starts with B, and rhymes with Shaker?

    re .347:
    
>>  how do you pronounce Zxxxcuyzirx?   ;-)

>Starts with B, and rhymes with Shaker?
    
    I always thought English pronunciation is strange, but this...? ;-)
    
    How would you pronounce my last name - starts with a J, and ends with
    an N?     ;-)
    
    

    When I was in the Navy, out drill instructor had real problem
    pronouncing one guy's name, lot of consonents, few vowels. Finally he
    gave up, and told him that no matter how he wanted to spell it, for now
    it was pronounced "Smith".
    
    Does it really matter how you spell it? You can pronounce it anyway you
    want!
    
    .mike.

    Rathole alert!!
    
    NAVY....It's not just a job, it's an indenture!
    
    ex Bubble Head....Oh, I mean submariner.

    .341
    My problem with the rejected mail I've received in ms-exchange is that it 
    doesn't include the body of the message - just the subject. At times 
    I've already deleted the message to save space.  So I either have 
    to rewrite the message or - sometimes - I can't even do that if the 
    subject is something general like "latest status"!
    
   I'm guessing it's been set up that way in Digital to save bandwidth, but 
    that's just a guess. Anyone know for sure if that's why?  
                                              

True story.

Somewhere I know used "first three letters of surname" + "first letter of given 
name" for username/mail, so my (Peter Mayne) username would be "mayp". This 
worked well for a while until Tom Cunningham started working there. The naming 
policy became a little more anarchic after that.

Last year I started getting all kinds of strange mail (electronic and snail) and 
phone calls. One phone caller said in a rather surprised manner "You were a girl 
the last time I talked to you". (I assured him I hadn't been.) Turns out that a 
Peta Mayne had recently started work in Sydney.

I sit between the previously mentioned John Baker and "John Doe". The confusion 
is wonderful.

PJDM

    
    
    Just to go back to our discussion about the big mail messages,
    yesterday one person sent a message (7.5 MBs) to 76 receipients from
    SMTP mail to different types of internal users (Exchange, SMTP,
    ALL-IN-1).
    
    You can make you own calculations, what does this mean, if it goes
    through the network and gateways few times.
    
    From my perspective (participating the infrastructure management) this
    is completely brain dead usage of the mail backbone. But I'm sure some
    of you feels that this is a normal usage of it. I just hope, that we
    would learn the reality ...
    
    Rgds,
    	  Pasi Kinnari, European Network Operations Center
    
    

        Yes, and the telephone companies think that tying up their lines with
    4-hour local calls to your ISP is a brain-dead use of their system, too.
    Unfortunately, the custmoers get to decide how they want to use the
    facilities.
    
    \dave

    re .354:
    
    �    Yes, and the telephone companies think that tying up their lines with
    �4-hour local calls to your ISP is a brain-dead use of their system, too.
    �Unfortunately, the custmoers get to decide how they want to use the
    �facilities.
    
    The customers may decide how to use the facilities, but the telephone
    compananies will decide how much they want to charge for it...
    

>> <<< Note 4775.353 by SUTRA::KINNARI "Pasi Kinnari, CCS/ENOC, DTN 828-5624" >>>
>>                          -< Big messages hit again >-

    
>>    Just to go back to our discussion about the big mail messages,
>>    yesterday one person sent a message (7.5 MBs) to 76 receipients from
>>    SMTP mail to different types of internal users (Exchange, SMTP,
>>    ALL-IN-1).
  
So are you saying that it would be significantly cheaper for the company
to just send a pointer to the file and have 76 people individually spend
time ($$) trying to copy the file? 

Garry

    
    	Yes, and they should copy it after hours so as not to overwork the
    	systems.
    

    And all the copies would be much more randomly distributed.
    
    But most important:  Only 2 out those 75 probably even _wanted_ it!
    
    FJP

>    	Yes, and they should copy it after hours so as not to overwork the
>    	systems.

Obviously, since systems cost so much more than people, right?

    And just WHEN is after hours? We are a GLOBAL comapny, remember?
    
    Debbie
    

    
    	You people will eventually stop taking me seriously.
    
    	I hope.  8^)
    

    Just got nuked by someone mailing me a 2 Mb compressed file.
    
    It took almost an hour over 28.8 dialup.  I could have downloaded in
    Netscape in far less time than that, IF I DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE THE
    @#$$er!  %*%(*&%&*(%*(%!
    
    FJP

Most users know nothing about the size of files they are sending. 

Dave.

    
    
    I understand the problems which might appear, if you don't have all
    the information immediately in those 76 pair of hands immediately.
    
    But look in this way. If something like this happens, it will create a
    backlog of the messaging for a day at least. How much you do you think this
    it will cost for the company, if the delivery time of all the messages will
    increare let say 4 hours because of that? This affects all the people
    in Digital. A lot more that the lost for these 76 people (from
    which 10 actually would like to have this presentation).
    
    And a little bit technical affects of this. If we deliver 76 copies of
    a message (7.5 MB), this is about 4000 Mbits of data. If we have 1
    Mbit/sec WAN link (which we don't have), this would take at least 1.5
    hours to transmit, if the whole link capacity could be used just for
    this purpose. Unfortunutenly the links are always 100 % utilized during
    business hours even without this. And, one message allocates a line for
    1.5 hours! Even if we increase the capacity of every single device in
    the network, this will not work. If the link speed would be 10
    Mbits/sec (=ethernet), it would require 10 messages to do the same mess.
    
    So, pointers to the big documents is the only working solution at the
    time. And in the near future.
    
    //pasi
                                                              

    So there's no way of having Exchange report automagically to its
    administrators and say "I'm stuck; help me" if it hasn't made any
    visible progress through its work queue? You have to wait a whole day
    before anyone happens to notice that it's got stuck ? Gee, thank you
    Bill... thank you CCS ... your technology and implementations are so
    wonderful.
    
    When I send mail from All-in-1 to external Internet I typically start
    getting warning mails back if the mail hasn't been successfully
    delivered in a few hours. But that isn't the "industry standard" as
    implemented by MS so we don't get the choice ? 
    
    regards
    john

    If my memory serves me right, we have been having network capacity
    problems since we started "saving money" by redesigning (read,
    down-grading) the network. The simple fact is, that the network isn't
    man enough for the job it's being asked to do.
    
    Laurie.

    
    Re .365
    
    This problem didn't have anything to do with Exchange but the gateways
    between Exchange, SMTP and MTS worlds (ALL-IN1).
    
    I'm sure there is enough utilities to discover, that message flow is
    stopped. That is not the problem. The problem is that there is too
    much data to be transfered. You just can't push a football through 1
    inch hole (or at least it takes time). Only thing is to reduce the
    amount of data (or have BIG upgrades).
    

I'm sure this will only serve to increase the diameter of this
rathole, but ...

If people in this company spent as much time talking about the pluses
of MS Exchange, and talking about how to fix the problems that we are
seeing, as we do complaining about it, we'd be quite well off, I
think.

Of course, I don't expect those of you who have crafted error-free
software or hardware to participate, since you do live in glass
houses.

Go ahead, have at me!

Pete

    The file in question was yet another copy of the MAPI kit for Exchange.
    
    Our group has a file server with a share which already contains this
    and many other kits that handle different aspects of the Exchange /
    ALL-IN-1 I19y issues.  I already have these on my file server at home.
    
    I was _downstream_ on this absent minded forward.  God knows how many
    others it went to upstream, but I noticed a lot bitching about the
    network in the northeast a few hours before this sucker hit me!
    
    I CALL THIS A DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACK!
    
    FJP

Frank:

I notice that you're being diplomatic and not mentioning who sent the 
message in question...  ;-)

--Ed (in the same group, and also on the recipient list for the waste 
of network bandwidth)

re: .367

Someone here at DECwest likes to describe that
type of data flow by having someone imagine a pipeline,
then imagine it is connected to a straw... (this is a
vivid picture when explaining why one can't backup
data as fast as one would like to).  It doesn't
matter how many pipelines you have (and how big) if
you have a few straws piecing things together.  

    Again, 
    
    I do not blame the forwarder (too much).  I may have a problem with the
    _originator_ ;-)

    re: .366
    
    	The corporation has been adding capacity to the network for over a
    year now.  However, I doubt that it is prudent or affordable to design a
    network that can sustain sending huge files at random via Exchange or
    any other messaging system.
    
    	This is probably a real bad case of "build it and they will come".
    
    	Leo

    Frank,
    
    While this a problem, I really dont think the fault lies
    with the sender at all. I believe it lies with the CCS group in its
    entirety:
    
    There is no published guidance on network etiquette, CCS have the
    right to either:
    	a. establish some acceptable ground rules for behaviour
    	b. set limits on those gateways (or Exchange connectors)
    	c. establish cost centre charge back for messages exceeding given
    	   size limits
    To my knowledge, they have done none of these things.
    
    I do not expect users who are given a capability (multi-part messages) to 
    then consider all of the impacts of using that feature. Is it
    inconsiderate? Perhaps. Was it inconsiderate to send these people into
    a brave new world with no guidance for acceptable usage of the new
    infrastratucture provided to them? Certainly.
    
    When my customers make a move to a new capability, they usually try to
    assess the impact of their proposed actions. The growing use of richer 
    format mail must have been assessed by the Technical Architectures Group 
    (TAG) and appropriate funding sought and processes developed to handle the
    growth, right? After all, this infrastructure is supposed to support us 
    beyond the year 2000, and the material I've seen explicitly states the
    use of Multi-body part messsages (particularly MIME) as a prime reason
    for the shift.
    
    I think that CCS have focused too much on the technology that is
    Exchange and not enough on what impact this has for policy, processes,
    the supporting infrastructure needed and most of all, people.
    
    Oh,
    r.e .353 by pasi
    >From my perspective (participating the infrastructure management) this
    >is completely brain dead usage of the mail backbone. But I'm sure
    >some of you feels that this is a normal usage of it. I just hope, that
    >we would learn the reality ...
    
    Generally I would consider it bad form to call any of my customer's
    (dont forget, we are your customer) actions "brain dead" in an open forum of that customer. I think the
    relationship would end fairly quickly. I may question their actions,
    but I really dont think the way you have stated things is really
    customer focused. 
    
    - John
    

    RE: .374
    
    *** APPLAUSE ***
    
    Laurie.

    
    
    I'm not sure, if this was the same message (this happened in Europe).
    Anyway, after 3 days the situation has been cleaned and is back to
    "normal".
    
    Re .374
    
    Maybe my wording wasn't the best one. But I feel, that it's better to
    say something rather than be quiet, if you know a little bit things
    behind the scenes. Otherwise people just blame the wrong reasons of the
    problems. Without reacting there wouldn't be any discussion. You can't
    always win. (And besides, where the slamming of BP and upper management
    falls in this conference? I think mine was quite mild compared to that...)
    
    I have proposed 1) and 2), so the ideas are not new.
    
    What is the general opinion of the user community, if there is a
    software limit (5, 10 or whatever MB) on the message size? This can be
    configured in many of the softwares, also in the one, which is the
    biggest source of the problems.
    
    //pasi
                                       

    
    Isn't the need to continually increase network and processing capacity
    a major reason for our commitment to Exchange ? Surely this is the
    All-in-1 of the new age ? convince the big corporate customers they
    need Exchange, help them implement it, then sit back and wait for the
    hardware orders to role in....
    
    Graham   

I agree with John in .374. Exchange is now used as the default transport 
mechanism for documents, presentations, meeting agendas and notes. Unless you
force some guidelines people will continue to accidentally missuse (I feel
incorrect in saying missuse because that's what they were told they were
moving to exchange for) the tools.

It is getting difficult to get people to provide on-line pointers. "How do I
do that?" is an increasingly common reply.

Similar to the use of printers, unless they are set by default double-up
double sided people will continue to waste paper by printing manuals and
text single sided.   

hope this helps,

Bob (still waiting for his exchange account....:-( maybe i'll have to move
to another part of the world to get one :-))

Is there a way to use a local exchange when dialing into
RAS?  The CCS Web page gives a list of RAS telephone numbers.

I tried a local one but it didn't work.  It seems ashame
to make a long distance telephone call when there's
a local number available.

Gim

    This is a fun one, RAS access... 
    
    I'm currently sitting in an office that has a 56K line to NIO, and even
    with several knowledgeable people's help, we still can't get exchange
    to talk to our laptops.
    
    The alternative? 
    
    Long distance dialup at who-knows-how-much-a-minute.
    
    I wonder how much MCI stock has gone up since we started going to
    exchange?
    
    .mike.
    

>> I tried a local one but it didn't work.

Try again.  I had a really hard time connecting a few days ago, but more
recently was able to get connected with no trouble.  I'm not sure what the
problem was.

						Brian

re: .381,

I tried dialing into Acton and Maynard and
logging into the Storage Domain in SHR. 

I was rejected after multiple tries.  Seems
that the Storage domain is not recognized in
Maynard or Acton.

Gim

    I think that the CCS RAS lines will only accept logins to the DIGITAL1
    Domain (on US RAS Lines).
    
    Once you are on, you should be able to make connections to a Storage
    Domain.

>                  <<< Note 4775.373 by KYOSS1::FEDOR "Leo " >>>
>                         -< Who can keep up with it? >-
>
>    re: .366
>    
>    	The corporation has been adding capacity to the network for over a
>    year now.  However, I doubt that it is prudent or affordable to design a
>    network that can sustain sending huge files at random via Exchange or
>    any other messaging system.
>    
>    	This is probably a real bad case of "build it and they will come".
>    
>    	Leo
>

Quoted without permission from Gartner Group:

	"By 2001 increased demand for information and radical traffic
	pattern changes will increase enterprise utilisation of wide
	area networks by up to 300 percent while at least doubling
	spending (0.7 probability)"

	"As early as 1998, real-time collaboration applications will
	overwhelm 40 percent of large corporate networks, forcing
	monumental infrastructure upgrades (0.7 probability)"

No, it is not quite "build it and they will come", it is more like
"build it or they will go someplace else". If we want to play in a
distributed knowledge-based industry, then we've got to put the chips
on the table.

    I got bitten my Microsoft's superior networking technology (again..).
    
    I have a domain account in DIGITAL2 (which I very rarely use, 'cause I
    don't really know what it's good for). Anyway, I just tried to log in,
    and it said my password has expired (not unlikely) and forces me to
    change it. Entering a new one it says "Unable to change password... The
    domain controller for this domain cannot be found."
    
    I can't log in.
    
    Apparently the PDC is unreachable (it's in reading, UK, I'm in Munich,
    Germany). The local BDC recognises my account of course (otherwise I
    wouldn't even get so far as to type in anew password) but then,
    realising the PDC isn't reachable, can't change the passowrd 9but
    doesn't let me in either).
    

    Re: .last
    
    I've been in an official domain now for a while (~9 months) and I've
    been using Exchange for most of that time.  The "Cannot contact domain
    controller" message is dreadfully common and can be caused by network
    problems OR screw-ups with controller administration.  It seems like
    once a month I'm bitten by the latter.
    
    If your computer domain (like DIGITALWSxxx1 [where xxx is your site
    code]) is like ours, its set up and administered on a shared timeslice
    labor basis.  The resulting slip-ups and snafus are all too
    predictable, and can affect your Exchange usage.
    
    In fact CCS has offloaded much of the field deployment labor to folks
    who aren't supposed to be doing this... but that's another topic.

The local IS people in Sydney send out "Exchange Tips" every now and again. Last 
week they sent an email containing a list of advantages and disadavantages of 
using either the default Exchange editor or Word as the editor.

Unfortunately, the list was completely missing from the email.

Turns out that Exchange had decided that I (a Teamlinks user) wouldn't be able 
to read this list (formatted as a table) and removed it before the email was 
sent, without telling the sender, and without telling me.

So, not only will your mail take days to arrive, but you can't even be sure how 
much of it will get to the other end so the recipient can read it.

PJDM

  Has anyone else wondered if Exchange is, in fact, a way for
  Microsoft to weaken its various competitors in the market?

  After all, if all of a sudden our Email goes from instant-
  aneous, assured to delivery to "maybe some of it will get
  there in five or six days" delivery, this *COULD* affect
  our ability to be competitive.

  I'm sorry, but after hundreds of replies, I still FAIL TO SEE
  what *DIGITAL* problem Exchange was "the solution" to. I do
  see that our migration to Exchange may solve some of Microsoft's
  problems.
                                   Atlant

    
    It was the solution to supposedly 'get some Exchange experience,
    whatever it takes'
    
    This includes giving our ALL-IN-1 base away to Lotus/Exchange,
    bring severe delays to messaging, annoying our employees.
    
    Exchange, whatever it takes
    Mike

    re: Note 4775.388 by 2970::SCHMIDT
    
    Like I've speculated before, Exchange was part of the solution to
    getting MS to support NT on Alpha.
    
    Ken....

    What really sucks here?
    
    Exchange?  Or our implementation of it?
    
    

    I've been fairly open-minded about this hitherto, but I'm working at
    home at the moment on some urgent documentation for a *very* large
    customer, with a dead-line of this Wednesday evening. Exchange is
    causing me *hours* of delays in trying to get edits checked and
    approved. How much longer can the Company carry this before something
    breaks?
    
    I don't care what's causing the problems, I just *need* it fixed.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    �Note 4775.391 by MAIL2::RICCIARDI
    
    I think what sucks here is a combination of our implementation and the
    fact that we are currently the largest single corporate user of
    Exchange which is bringing it's own problems.
    
    Regards,
    
    Jim
    (Not an exchange user yet! 'fortunately')

    The details I've seen are that 34K+ memos were delayed for 10 days.
    
                            CCS ANNOUNCEMENT
       
    WHAT: Delayed delivery of some outgoing Internet mail.
    
    WHEN: Tuesday, 2/11/97  thru Saturday, 2/22/97.
          
    IMPACT: Delivery of some outbound messages may have been delayed up to
    10 days.
    
    ACTION:  Problem was identified and corrected on Saturday, 2/22/97. 
    All delayed messages were delivered by early Sunday morning, 2/23/97.
     
    If you have questions, please contact your local Help Desk or your
    Client Services Representative.  The number of your local Help Desk can
    be found on the CCS World-Wide Web Home Page.
    
    http://www.imc.das.dec.com/ccs/
    
    DIGITAL Internal Use Only

    re .394

    What is not stated is what is being done to prevent this from occuring
    again. I was told that the problem was a large message that was not
    transmitting. I had several messagess caught up in this. If Exchange
    does not have the management tools to detect and report these types of
    problems, then it is not ready for the big city. If it has the tools,
    but they were not being used, then I would hope they are now running.

    The mails that I was missing were Exchange to VMSmail. In at least one
    case mail was sent from the dasexc1 server on 17-FEB, received on 
    mrohub1 on 16-FEB (the day before?), back to dasexc1 on 22-FEB and
    finally to us2rmc and to VMSmail also on 22-FEB.

    It just seems with our Exhange support we are working very hard on the
    symptoms, but not the real problem. It just does not seem that things
    are getting better. 

    - Bob

>    The mails that I was missing were Exchange to VMSmail.

That's part of what they were talking about, I am certain.

Exchange (it seems) doesn't know from VMSmail, so going from Exchange
to VMSmail (or Unix or whatever) involves going into "Internet Mail" (SMTP
within our Intranet) and then to VMSmail via your VMS TCP/IP smtp server
([email protected]) or via your regional SMTP to DECnet gateway
(USnRMC for [email protected]).

/john

    just a tidbit from another company - Rockwell is ditching Microsoft
    to go to Lotus Notes.
    
    John

    RE .397

    From a Lotus Notes marketing poster at a Nashua, New Hampshire PC
    business:

    "at last a messaging system you will never have to exchange"

    - Bob

For those among us who refuse to consider Exchange because the client doesn't 
run on their platform of choice, go to

	http://www.exchangeserver.com/testdrive/

and try the Microsoft Exchange Web client.

Note also the rather obvious "Microsoft Digital Alliance" and "AlphaGeneration" 
logos, and the fact that this Exchange server is powered by an AlphaServer 4000.

PJDM

    Also, this looks quite similar to Oracle InterOffice project.
    
    I should also plug the WebMail done by fellow Digit from Europe
    	www.rto.dec.com/Webmail
    
    - Vikas

The reason for not going Exchange is not platform issue, at least not for me.
I'll use clients, server and backbone of my choice. And my choice is closely
related to what I have used over these years, what I am currently supporting
to customers.

Therefore my primary mail system will ALL-IN-1. VMSmail, SMTP mail etc will
play part in the game. Right now Exchange does not fit into the picture.

_veli

...but the Exchange effort seems to show that we prefer migration over
integration.

Until a few months ago, we had a bullet-proof, fast, reliable messaging
infrastructure. Much of it was based on ALL-IN-1, with clients of all sorts
(terminal interface, Teamlinks for PC based woring,...) and just autoforwarding
for many people who preferred VMSmail or UNIX mail. Sending mails between
ALL-IN-1, VMSmail and UNIX was not worth talking about - it was practiced all
the time. 

I remember that I got maybe two or three mails per year that messages sent to a
specific location within a usually very small timeframe might have been lost -
due to some hardware failure; but with increased use of mirroring/shadowing
technologies these events happened less frequently over time.

Instead of integrating Exchange as another frontend for those who wanted to use
it, we decided to throw the working stuff over board just too fast. In these
days it is quite common that 

- messages between two locations about 100 miles apart take a day or more 
- messages simply got lost ("yeah, we know about this - it happens all the
  time")
- messages get stuck up somewhere in the line, usually at some gateway / 
  converter etc.
- messages are converted incompletely (as stated before). As an example - 
  when the accounts in the digital2 domain for a couple colleagues and me were
  set up, we got a mail "please use the account names shown in the table below"
  with no table below, just the next paragraph of the mail.

At least once a month we are informed that messages pile up somewhere and it
will take a day or two until delivery times return to normal (whatever this is
these days). Maybe as often the messages pile up without information being sent
out.

I still don't understand why
- the move to Exchange is a must for everyone, given our 'integrated diversity'
  we had before
- the move was scheduled without a thorough (?) pilot, and in a much too small
  migration time frame.

Hans.
(still a happy user of both ALL-IN-1 *and* VMSmail (for intra- and internet
mail)).

PS: with respect to the ALL-IN-1 terminal interface I agree that it is not able
to display the increasing number of Word or Excel attachements. But it is
incredibly useful during dial-in access. It just takes a modem and a VT terminal
and is much faster because of the compact (ASCII) message format. It's at least
possible to scan the folders. With Teamlinks we can/could have the best of both
worlds...

    Hans,
       For your answer, see all the notes which refer to how Digital is
    bending over backwards to please Microsoft while getting nothing in
    return. I always wonder how many of the VPs who have issued the
    "migration to Exchange" edict ever actually have to read their own
    mail. I suspect most of them have their secretaries read their mail and
    print the important stuff. So much for the electronic workplace.
    
    Debbie
    

    
    	Well, to sum it up, if a major fire ever breaks out in MRO, I hope
    	that they don't decide to notify us of this via Exchange.
    

    I just forwarded a message from LIVEWIRE and Exchange spell checked it
    to LIVELIER.
    
    

    Debbie,
    
    >>>
       For your answer, see all the notes which refer to how Digital is
    bending over backwards to please Microsoft while getting nothing in
    return. I always wonder how many of the VPs who have issued the
    "migration to Exchange" edict ever actually have to read their own
    mail. 
    >>>
    
    ummm.. I don't want to appear that I am defending the Exchange product
    or decision to migrate on masse to it, but there are some additional
    considerations that you should be aware of ie.
    
    Yes, there are Exchange product issues (most of the major ones like
    known send queue problem are supposed to be addressed in the just
    released V5.0).
    
    However, one of the biggest problems with the migration was not due
    to Exchange, but actually WINS issues. Digital, like many other major
    companies implementing NT have found that WINS is not a stable product.
    With patches applied (most recent one fixed a big issue within
    Digital),it is now much better.
    
    To say that Digital has gotten nothing in return is not accurate as
    the following pointers indicate:
    
    http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/bt.htm (British Telecom)
    
    http://www.microsoft.com/corpinfo/press/1996/sept96/decmspr.htm
    (Lockheed Martin)
    
    http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/gcn.htm (U.S. Postal Service)
    
    See March 1 edition of Digital Today which also lists a number of
    recent Messaging (mostly Exchange) wins e.g. quote from front page
    about DIGITAL Japan win "DIGITAL Japan is designing and implementing
    a communications system, including E-mail and internet access for Kyowa
    Hakko Kogyo Co.... DIGITAL Services has installed about 60 Windows NT
    servers and 2,200 PC clients for this Microsoft Exchange electronic
    mail solution"
    
    Of course, being a V1.0 mail product, it does have some growing up to
    do, but as painful as it has been internally, it has certainly helped
    to bring in additional business for DIGITAL.
    
    Regards,
    
    / Kerry

    
>    Of course, being a V1.0 mail product, it does have some growing up to
>    do, but as painful as it has been internally, it has certainly helped
>    to bring in additional business for DIGITAL.
                 ~~~~~~~~~~

Additional to what?  Your data simply says that Digital won those enccounters
which it would not have won had it not had a mail product to offer.  What
we need to be comparing with is our current performance with where we would
be had we adopted a different Mail and Messaging strategy. For example, how
would we be doing if we had simply been continuing to push All-in-one,
Teamlinks? or if we had climbed on the Lotus Notes bandwagon?  These
comparisons are much harder to quantify.

Ram

    In most (if not all) these wins, the Microsoft relationship is
    considered to be very important to Customers. They want Microsoft
    products (the new "safe" decision), but they recognize that
    Microsoft has little "enterprise" implementation skills. Partnering
    with DIGITAL gives them the best of both worlds.
    
    In addition, more and more of these type decisions are being made by
    senior execs not even tied to the IT support groups in these companies
    ie. the technical issues have become less of an issue. This is
    analagous to the BETA vs VHS debates - Cust want to do what everyone
    else is doing or what they perceive everyone else is doing.
    
    It may not be right, but thats reality.
    
    Note - in addition to this, it was Microsoft who brought DIGITAL in
    on a number of these accounts opportunities.
    
    Regards,
    
    / Kerry

    re: .408
    
    It would be nice if someone would actually break down these Exchange
    wins into the amount of consulting income vs the amount of repeatable
    product income.
    
    What no one seems to talk about is that an Exchange sale gives us
    considerable immediate consulting income (which, as a member of NSIS,
    pleases me), but it doesn't necessarily ensure a long-term Digital
    revenue stream.  This concerns me greatly.  When we used to push
    OpenVMS and Digital Unix, we knew that the follow-on business was ours
    to lose; we'd get the business if we didn't blow it.  When we sell NT,
    we give Microsoft the follow-on business; we have to compete for our
    portion of follow-on business almost from square one.
    
    The new revenue model demands that we "sell" each piece of follow-on
    business.  Yet, we don't have even have enough sales reps to service
    the customers who automatically came to us for follow-on business in
    the old model.  How can we sustain repeated selling efforts for each
    piece of business when we can't handle even the automatic business
    generated by our "legacy" systems?
    
    -- Russ

    >>>
    What no one seems to talk about is that an Exchange sale gives us
    considerable immediate consulting income (which, as a member of NSIS,
    pleases me), but it doesn't necessarily ensure a long-term Digital
    revenue stream.  
    >>>
    
    This concept of "long term revenue stream" no longer applies in todays
    world. Every vendor has to continually fight and earn every service $
    that they get. No one can expect to sit back and let the $'s flow in
    anymore.
    
    >>> When we sell NT, we give Microsoft the follow-on business; we have 
    to compete for our portion of follow-on business almost from square one.
    >>>
    
    This assumption is based on Microsoft having a credible enterprise
    image - both in terms of service and reputation. They do not. 
    
    When Customers think of Microsoft, they think of commodity products, not
    global service partners that they can depend on.
    
    DIGITAL has a global service reputation (just recently won major award)
    with more MCSE's than anyone else - including Microsoft. We have 24x7
    Support centers around the globe. We are implementing MS Exchange on a
    global basis and can (and have) been able to relate these experiences
    (good and bad) with Customers.
    
    IMO, the business is still ours to lose ie. who else can state all of
    these features ?
    
    This is what is going to drive future revenue streams with Customers
    who have bought into Microsoft product strategies. The new model is
    based on an old philosophy ie. faith in your service provider.
    
    The issue is that in our haste to service the Customers looking at
    Microsoft product strategies (tier 1/2 high growth market), we have not 
    paid as much attention to those Customers in the tier 3 arena (UNIX/ 
    OpenVMS). Our recent sell off of key products in the tier 3 arena
    did not help this at all.
    
    As evidenced by IBM's huge recent sales in mainframe "enterprise
    servers" and it's MVS OS, this market is far from being "legacy". As 
    more and more Customers start their "re-centralization efforts" with 
    such strategies as thin clients, and reducing the number of servers 
    they have, DIGITAL needs to recognize that there are 2 distinct markets 
    out there today.
    
    "Desktop/dept server" and "enterprise computing". 
    
    Has this model really changed in the last number of years ?
    
    With JAVA starting to make an impact (12 months likely before real
    products start to impact any other sales), then DIGITAL needs to
    make sure it does not put all of it's egg's in one basket. 
    
    Note - To it's credit, DIGITAL does have a few "aces up it's sleeve"
    ie. how many people knew that JAVA has been licensed on both DITAL UNIX
    and OpenVMS ?  64bit JAVA engines with huge memory config's may be a real 
    key in next 12-18 months.
    
    :-)
    
    Regards,
    
    / Kerry

	Hopefully this won't be sent back from the moderators. I think
	it's relevant to the conversation and the salary continuation
	plan.

	This is to those people in the field that sell and service 
	Exchange implementations.

	Please take a look at http://isg25.zko.dec.com and
	http://www.digital.com/alphaserver/solutions/tele/tele.html

	These are the internal and external home pages of the 
	Integrated Telecommunications AlphaServer solution. In a nutshell,
	it is computer-telephony integration (CTI) with MS Exchange Server.

	This is a good opportunity for additional product sales and
	certainly additional consulting sales.

	We are currently working on more options in this space (CTI)
	that will offer additional opportunities.

	If you would like to see additional information on these
	web pages, please send me mail.

							mike

    Re: .406
    
    Kerry,
        I'll reserve judgement on the BT and Lockheed deals until their
    completely delivered. Call me a Chicken Little, but I wouldn't want to
    be within 100 miles of those deals....they remind me too much of the
    other high profile wins we had in the past where we didn't have the
    delivery resources or expertise to deliver and eventually Digital
    either got sued, or fined so much money in late charges that we lost
    millions on the "great deals". So let me know how it all goes after the
    last desktop is installed....until then I say  "we'll see".
    
    Debbie
    

    re: .410
    
>    This concept of "long term revenue stream" no longer applies in todays
>    world. Every vendor has to continually fight and earn every service $
>    that they get. No one can expect to sit back and let the $'s flow in
>    anymore.
    
    I wasn't talking about "long term revenue stream" w.r.t. SERVICE
    offerings -- I was talking about long term revenue for DIGITAL: which
    is necessarily PRODUCT based.
    
    There are LOTS of companies working product-based long term revenue
    streams.  Microsoft is one, IBM is another, HP is another, etc.  They
    all have products which produce follow-on revenue (notably, O/S
    upgrades, product upgrades, etc).  We seem bent on divesting almost ALL
    sources of long term revenue (read: SOFTWARE).
    
    Yet, we are trying to compete with these other companies WITH long term
    revenue streams.  This is NOT a good situation.  We should preserve
    long term revenue where we can or we will continue our slide downward
    in mind & market share.
    
    -- Russ