IMAP in house or other?

[Jeff Schroeder]

Steve wrote:

> One major concern is that since we are growing so fast we really
> cannot afford to lose even 1 single email...
>
> ... What we need is to either implement an "in house" IMAP server or
> go with a hosted solution.

Unless you have great faith in the connectivity of your office internet 
connection, as well as the uptime of your mail server, and your ability 
to effectively administer said server, it seems to me that a hosted 
solution will be the better choice here.

It's not to say you couldn't do it in-house, and in fact that option is 
probably attractive for several reasons, but when you talk about 
"cannot afford to lose even a single e-mail" it sounds like it's 
something best left in the hands of professionals.  Hosting companies 
have redundant servers, multiple backbone connections, 24/7 staff to 
monitor and fix problems, etc.

Moreover, hosted e-mail for a dozen users (even a hundred) isn't 
terribly expensive.  Weigh the cost of the "lost e-mail" scenario with 
the cost of paying someone to run your e-mail and make sure it's solid.

$0.02,
Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20060606/d09d0be0/attachment.pgp