Re: OT - Re: Future of Qmail-LDAP

As I have mentioned the requirement came from wanting to offer large
gmail style mailboxes. We had 1.5m users of which 80% were active.

We opted for the paid model so that we could utilise the HSM -
Hierarchal Storage Management. This is not available in the free
version. Although like what others have mentioned - you could use
intelligent storage providers to do the same.

The paid model also offered us support which was a critical element
going forward.

The open source model will do almost everything that you would want to
do. You would lose functionality like synchronization and push mail to
mobile devices (however some people are doing this with funambol). You
also lose clustering ability, but read my blog post about that.

You can always move from OpenSource model to licensed easily enough if
you need to.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Russell Simpkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Scott,
>
>  I only learned of zimbra from your post and wondered if would share some
> more details. It appears that zimbra offers up its source, but it is
> also doing a pay model. I only scanned the docs, but it appeared that
> the open source model is a scaled down model that doesn't offer all of
> the features of the pay model.
>
> Are you using the paid model or the open source model?
> Can you get all of the benefits with the open source model? Sometimes
> companies use more marketing gimmicks to make it seem like you get more
> for a pay model when they're really just selling the open source product -
> or by paying you are mostly getting support e.g. redhat vs centos.
>
> I am happy with my qmail-ldap, but Zimbra does sound like a decent
> solution and I know many people are happy with Postfix. I plan to give
> their client a test drive as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Russ
>
>



-- 
Scott Ryan
http://bonoboslr.wordpress.com/