[clug] Interesting article

[Andrew Janke]

>> eg: Gmail gives a much better service (on any metric)
>>       than the thousands of corporate exchange servers,
>>       that are so expensively mismanaged.
>
> Gmail doesn't provide security.  That's a deal killer for a lot of groups
> right there.  A government department of sizeable international corporation
> isn't going to be happy putting all their sensitive email traffic on US
> servers.

And here is where I find this whole argument of storing "sensitive"
emails in house at best amusing. I would take a punt that having email
stored on a gmail server is safer or at least as safe as having it
within a typical corporate Exchange Server and on a dozen or so
laptops. If you want secure email, encrypt it.  The most laughable bit
of all this is that every single machine along the way in the email
chain can read "your email".  Yes, perhaps this might be an issue for
internal email, but I dont think that is a good reason _not_ to use
externally hosted email.

> At my company we (mis)use email to transfer files between people, often 5+MB
> to multiple people.  This isn't a significant issue over a network, just
> wastes some HD space.  If that was all going out over the company ADSL pipe
> it just wouldn't work.

There is such a thing as a gmail/google appliance that as I understand
gets around this "problem". The details on this are somewhat scant but
this is what I understand...

I try to not be a rabid Google Fanbot but in my case I just happen to
run an entire SMB from gmail and love it. Web access, IMAP to multiple
devices, Mobile (via S60 app on a E71), Integrated (shareable)
calendaring, free SMS reminders of appointments, etc etc. I fail to
see why other (typically M$ centric) SMB's are so scared to try it.

I have investigated setting up my own hosted system to replace all of
the above using something like roundcube but each time I get close the
rotten gmail team add something else new.


a