|
List Info
Thread: Spam:****, Re: hardware recommendation for large surgemail/webmail system
|
|
| Spam:****, Re: hardware recommendation
for large surgemail/webmail system |
 
United States |
2008-05-20 14:35:44 |
It's not just us in Texas, it's a federal law that all
public entities including schools must archive their email,
in fact anyone that could be sued in federal court is
responsible for archiving.
http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02emai
l.h01.html
BTW, I've been archiving with SurgeMail for 23 months and
have used 20gb for 130 accounts.
Charles
----- Original Message -----
From: Lee McMullen <leem hursttech.com>
To: surgemail-listnetwinsite.com
Subject: Re: [SurgeMail List] hardware recommendation for
large surgemail/webmail system
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:52:36 -0500
>That should work but a side issue is the requirement in
>Texas for schools to archive all e-mail. It can fill
up
>fast.
>
>Lee
>
>David Camm wrote:
>> i may have the potential for gaining a new customer
who
>> would have 30,000 email accounts in a webmail
only
>>environment.
>> since this is an school district, and the email
system is
>> for students only (k - 12), i believe the system
would
>>be somewhat lightly used.
>> i'm thinking of three identical machines running
opensuse
>> , two would run surgemail with mirroring and the
third
>> would be an apache webmail machine connecting to
>> surgemail via a 100Mb/sec (or better) switch on a
>>192.168 network.
>> the machines would have dual quadcore cpus, 6MB
RAM, and
>> 4 500MB SATA II drives configured as raid5 with
hot
>> spare using a 3ware raid controller. this would
yield
>>just under 1TB of storage.
>> is this overkill or underkill for this many users?
>>
>> any comments from y'all who run large installations
would
>> be much appreciated.
>>
>> david camm
>> advanced web systems
>> keller, tx
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Charles Keaton
Director of Technology
Lockney (TX) Independent School District
PO Box 428
Lockney, TX 79241
806-652-4943 (Off. & Fax)
http://www.lockney.i
sd.tenet.edu
keaton.charleslockney.isd.tenet.edu
|
|
| Re: Spam:****, Re: hardware
recommendation for large
surgemail/webmail system |
United States |
2008-05-20 17:02:04 |
that's correct, and it certainly applies to the district
staff, in fact
the it director isn't quite sure what to do about it yet.
however, does the law apply to email generated by
students....
david
Charles Keaton wrote:
> It's not just us in Texas, it's a federal law that all
> public entities including schools must archive their
email,
> in fact anyone that could be sued in federal court is
> responsible for archiving.
>
> http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02emai
l.h01.html
>
> BTW, I've been archiving with SurgeMail for 23 months
and
> have used 20gb for 130 accounts.
>
> Charles
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lee McMullen <leemhursttech.com>
> To: surgemail-listnetwinsite.com
> Subject: Re: [SurgeMail List] hardware recommendation
for
> large surgemail/webmail system
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:52:36 -0500
>
>> That should work but a side issue is the
requirement in
>> Texas for schools to archive all e-mail. It can
fill up
>> fast.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> David Camm wrote:
>>> i may have the potential for gaining a new
customer who
>>> would have 30,000 email accounts in a webmail
only
>>> environment.
>>> since this is an school district, and the email
system is
>>> for students only (k - 12), i believe the
system would
>>> be somewhat lightly used.
>>> i'm thinking of three identical machines
running opensuse
>>> , two would run surgemail with mirroring and
the third
>>> would be an apache webmail machine connecting
to
>>> surgemail via a 100Mb/sec (or better) switch on
a
>>> 192.168 network.
>>> the machines would have dual quadcore cpus, 6MB
RAM, and
>>> 4 500MB SATA II drives configured as raid5
with hot
>>> spare using a 3ware raid controller. this
would yield
>>> just under 1TB of storage.
>>> is this overkill or underkill for this many
users?
>>>
>>> any comments from y'all who run large
installations would
>>> be much appreciated.
>>>
>>> david camm
>>> advanced web systems
>>> keller, tx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Charles Keaton
> Director of Technology
> Lockney (TX) Independent School District
> PO Box 428
> Lockney, TX 79241
> 806-652-4943 (Off. & Fax)
> http://www.lockney.i
sd.tenet.edu
> keaton.charleslockney.isd.tenet.edu
>
>
>
|
|
| Spam:****, RE: Spam:****, Re: hardware
recommendation for large
surgemail/webmail s |
United States |
2008-05-20 17:08:13 |
There are some interesting email storage appliances coming
on the market,
that also keep running searchable indexes of the archives
that I've seen
recently advertised. Most allow for external storage, as
well as expandable
storage, and can integrate with various email servers, not
just Exchange and
Notes.
Where there's a need, there will always be smart people
jumping in to
provide the solutions.
The key is being able to search and find the stuff you need
when required
though.
Glenn Meadows
Sheridan Square Entertainment
-----Original Message-----
From: David Camm [mailto:dcammadvwebsys.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 5:02 PM
To: surgemail-listnetwinsite.com
Subject: Re: Spam ***, Re:
[SurgeMail List] hardware recommendation for
large surgemail/webmail system
that's correct, and it certainly applies to the district
staff, in fact the
it director isn't quite sure what to do about it yet.
however, does the law apply to email generated by
students....
david
Charles Keaton wrote:
> It's not just us in Texas, it's a federal law that all
public entities
> including schools must archive their email, in fact
anyone that could
> be sued in federal court is responsible for archiving.
>
> http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2007/09/12/02emai
l.h01.html
>
> BTW, I've been archiving with SurgeMail for 23 months
and have used
> 20gb for 130 accounts.
>
> Charles
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Lee McMullen <leemhursttech.com>
> To: surgemail-listnetwinsite.com
> Subject: Re: [SurgeMail List] hardware recommendation
for large
> surgemail/webmail system
> Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 13:52:36 -0500
>
>> That should work but a side issue is the
requirement in Texas for
>> schools to archive all e-mail. It can fill up
fast.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> David Camm wrote:
>>> i may have the potential for gaining a new
customer who would have
>>> 30,000 email accounts in a webmail only
environment.
>>> since this is an school district, and the email
system is for
>>> students only (k - 12), i believe the system
would be somewhat
>>> lightly used.
>>> i'm thinking of three identical machines
running opensuse , two
>>> would run surgemail with mirroring and the
third would be an apache
>>> webmail machine connecting to surgemail via a
100Mb/sec (or better)
>>> switch on a
>>> 192.168 network.
>>> the machines would have dual quadcore cpus, 6MB
RAM, and
>>> 4 500MB SATA II drives configured as raid5
with hot spare using a
>>> 3ware raid controller. this would yield just
under 1TB of storage.
>>> is this overkill or underkill for this many
users?
>>>
>>> any comments from y'all who run large
installations would be much
>>> appreciated.
>>>
>>> david camm
>>> advanced web systems
>>> keller, tx
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> Charles Keaton
> Director of Technology
> Lockney (TX) Independent School District PO Box 428
Lockney, TX 79241
> 806-652-4943 (Off. & Fax)
> http://www.lockney.i
sd.tenet.edu
> keaton.charleslockney.isd.tenet.edu
>
>
>
|
|
| Re: hardware recommendation for large
surgemail/webmail system |
United States |
2008-05-21 19:02:26 |
At 5:08 PM -0500 5/20/08, Glenn Meadows sent email regarding
[SurgeMail List] hardware rec:
>There are some interesting email storage appliances
coming on the market,
>that also keep running searchable indexes of the
archives that I've seen
>recently advertised. Most allow for external storage,
as well as expandable
>storage, and can integrate with various email servers,
not just Exchange and
>Notes.
>
>Where there's a need, there will always be smart people
jumping in to
>provide the solutions.
>
>The key is being able to search and find the stuff you
need when required
>though.
It seems to me that the logical people to develop an
archival system
for SM are the netwin folks. I'd rather see an archival
system
included than blogs and frivolous stuff.
|
|
| Re: Archiving |
United States |
2008-05-21 21:47:57 |
|
|
>>It seems to me that the logical people to
develop an archival system
for SM are the netwin folks. I'd rather see an
archival system
included than blogs and frivolous stuff.
My post last week about this mentioned that archiving is
only required when a judge issues a court order.
Otherwise, most CEO's would not like to have any
ammunition left in the chamber in which to shoot one's foot.
When a company chooses to archive emails, they need a
plan. The plan should determine which emails should be archived and for
how long, and where. While systems can selectively archive emails
with certain Keywords in the emails, another method of doing this is to
write an mfilter rule that would copy such emails over to an archive account in
the domain, then someone at the domain would be responsible for pulling them off
the server onto their own computers and let them handle their own... OR
Surgemail can then archive that one account, which would require periodic manual
intervention to email that .zip file to the client.
Since most of the customers would probably place a low
value on such service, I would estimate that the overall profitability would be
low. It is possible that only certain industries would be
interested. In other words, our ISP service here is better off
putting time elsewhere.
We'd probably do the above only if it's a competitive
situation.
... Plus, you need to be careful what goes into the
archive files. We have a County Tax Agency as a client, and just in the
past 2 weeks there were more than 80 phishing emails sent to one specific
account. Most arrive from outside the USA, and none get through to the
In-Box. The client is quite happy.
In the last year, due to the postage increases, I've seen
a lot more people use email for serious communications. Again, archiving
should be per specific criteria.
BarryZ
1USA
|
| Re: Archiving |
United States |
2008-05-22 08:28:10 |
|
1usa.com">webmaster1usa.com wrote:
BARRYZ" type="cite">
>>It seems to me that the
logical people to develop an archival system
for SM are the netwin folks. I'd rather see an archival system
included than blogs and frivolous stuff.
My post last week about this mentioned that
archiving is only required when a judge issues a court order.
Otherwise, most CEO's would not like to have
any ammunition left in the chamber in which to shoot one's foot.
When a company chooses to archive emails,
they need a plan. ; The plan should determine which emails should be
archived and for how long, and where. While systems can selectively
archive emails with certain Keywords in the emails, another method of
doing this is to write an mfilter rule that would copy such emails over
to an archive account in the domain, then someone at the domain would
be responsible for pulling them off the server onto their own computers
and let them handle their own... OR Surgemail can then archive that
one account, which would require periodic manual intervention to email
that .zip file to the client.
Since most of the customers would probably
place a low value on such service, I would estimate that the overall
profitability would be low. It is possible that only certain
industries would be interested. In other words, our ISP service
here is better off putting time elsewhere.
We'd probably do the above only if it's a
competitive situation.
... Plus, you need to be careful what goes
into the archive files. We have a County Tax Agency as a client, and
just in the past 2 weeks there were more than 80 phishing emails sent
to one specific account. Most arrive from outside the USA, and none
get through to the In-Box. The client is quite happy.
In the last year, due to the postage
increases, I've seen a lot more people use email for serious
communications. Again, archiving should be per specific criteria.
BarryZ
1USA
There are some professions/companies/countries where that is not an
option. All legit email HAS to be archived. Any organization involved
with the SEC(Securities Exchange Commission in the US) are required to
archive all email for instance.
I don't think anyone would argue that spam needs to be archived for
legal purposes...
For those organizations where archiving is required, Surgemail does do
a good job of archiving. I have problems with retreiving email out of
an archive at the moment, but I will take that up with tech support
directly....
Lyle
|
[1-6]
|
|