Outlook Connector comparison (in German)

Am Donnerstag, 16. März 2006 16:44 schrieb Giovanni Baroni:
> Maybe someone can grab here some Information in
evaluating a Connector
> für Outlook and Kolab Server.
>
> http://activmedia
.ch/groupware6.php

You write that 
Konsec is a "real" MAPI storage provider doing
all works directly on the 
server
and Toltec is a plugin doing work on sync time.
From it you conclude that Konsec has the more
"professional" approach. 

Doing a work all the time in the background and at a sync
time
has some minor advantages and disadvantages. One is
certianly not more 
professional as the other.

From what Radley says, I think that explaining this as
"real MAPI storage 
prodider" against "plugin" is also
technically not precise enough as both 
work with MAPI and there is no directly conclusion towards
the chances
of working correctly with Outlook and Kolab.

> We did there just a few compares.... this isn't a
complete test!
>
> Feedback appreciated (maybe also to put online)
>
> For this case with choosed the Konsec Konnektor.
> This doesn't mean that Konsec is in general the better
solution.
> We've done very good experiences with the Toltec
Connector in the past.

_______________________________________________
Kolab-users mailing list
Kolab-userskolab.org
https:
//kolab.org/mailman/listinfo/kolab-users

Bernhard Reiter schrieb:
> Am Donnerstag, 16. März 2006 16:44 schrieb Giovanni
Baroni:
>   
>> Maybe someone can grab here some Information in
evaluating a Connector
>> für Outlook and Kolab Server.
>>
>> http://activmedia
.ch/groupware6.php
>>     
>
> You write that 
> Konsec is a "real" MAPI storage provider
doing all works directly on the 
> server
> and Toltec is a plugin doing work on sync time.
> From it you conclude that Konsec has the more
"professional" approach. 
>
> Doing a work all the time in the background and at a
sync time
> has some minor advantages and disadvantages. One is
certianly not more 
> professional as the other.
>   
Hi Bernhard

I personally think it's more complex to write an
Real-Mapi-Storage 
solution than to write a syncplugin. But it hasn't to be
the better 
solution.

http://www.linux-discount.de/Store/gw99/GW99
-140-ML/de?view=features

Toltec's solution has to sync the whole imap folder, where
Konsec deals 
just with the changes.
With Toltec you've to sync the folders in some cases
manually bevore you 
leave outlook (to be sure that changes are updated on the
imap store).

If i work with both connectors in Outlook (reading mails,
changing 
Folders, edititing Contacts and....) the same procedure ...
toltec 
consumes more bandwidth than konsec.
As only this was very important for the test....->
there's no real 
comparation of features, stability and ...

I also prefer and use personally the toltec solution, cause
it works 
stable and without problems. But the Konsec Konnektor sounds
to be very 
an interesting solution.
> From what Radley says, I think that explaining this as
"real MAPI storage 
> prodider" against "plugin" is also
technically not precise enough as both 
> work with MAPI and there is no directly conclusion
towards the chances
> of working correctly with Outlook and Kolab.
> ve done very good experiences with the Toltec Connector
in the past.
>   


_______________________________________________
Kolab-users mailing list
Kolab-userskolab.org
https:
//kolab.org/mailman/listinfo/kolab-users