 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Windows Server Forum / Exchange Server / Design / January 2007Exchange Edge Transport AND Exchange Hosted Filtering
Hello, Is it at all possible to use Edge Transport in combination with Exchange Hosted Filtering? The requirement is "USE a gateway in the perimeter" and Use Exchange Hosted Services if possible (or find another service provider) for all out going and incoming mail by: Have a secondary MX (that has a priority much higher than frontbridge) point to the edge transport server as backup (yes forefront will be protecting that server, could be changed to primary MX record when hosted services is down or not wanted anymore). Send all outgoing mail to Frontbridge, (to be changed in case the hosted services is down or not wanted anymore). Can it be done, I know it goes against the docs that say that edge transport should not be used with Exchange Hosted Services but this is a requirement. I think it can work but I would like your input on this (how and what) . Thx >Hello, > >Is it at all possible to use Edge Transport in combination with Exchange >Hosted Filtering? It would be pointless because Edge wouldn't pick anything up. >The requirement is "USE a gateway in the perimeter" and Use Exchange Hosted >Services if possible (or find another service provider) for all out going [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Thx Don't go creating multiple MX records. The Frontbridge service isn't one box, it's an armarda of kit all over the place. That's about as likely to go down as Message Labs (famous last words) What do you want; protection or just another box in a perimiter? I want a good solid solution :-) And I agree with the short but correct assesment. But life is not allways that easy. Any way policy says the mail needs to be delivered to perimeter. So it might as well be a linux box doing nothing but relaying mail :-) in the Frontbridge scenario.Customer wants a box in perimeter (policy). There is a big distrust in hosted services and MS is not making things easy on the Forefront / Hosted Services level with their licensing scemes, pricing and software assurance which doesn't seem to be a good fit for them. It might have nothing to do with technical issues but it does make them weary of the services rendered. My stance is either go for hosted solution or do it yourself, don't mix. Not both. But that box in the perimeter is a requirement. Perhaps it will be dropped in due time but today we discusses issues about the pricing and possibilities and the price per user per year that they get from their current vendors for Anti Spam and Anti virus (Mcafee for all PC's, servers, mail, gateway) priced at 68% of the MS offering for Frontfront anti virus (Mail only) and Anti-spam (hosted or not). This combined with the MS sales/licensing - they should really make it easier to be a customer in both sales schemes and easy of optimizing for real client needs- and the "taboe" word Software Assurance wiped the entire Exhange Hosted services / Edge Transport idea of the table today for complete review :-) We're back to what they have: a mail gateway in perimeter. The "service" business has in many ways promised so much that never materialized for their organization so this which leads to only one conclusion I think: it's not for them. And tryong to do both is a little madness. Thx for your time. >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > What do you want; protection or just another box in a perimiter? >I want a good solid solution :-) And I agree with the short but correct >assesment. But life is not allways that easy. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >have nothing to do with technical issues but it does make them weary of the >services rendered. MS are pushing Hosted in a big way so if the take up isn't high you can bet your boots it'll come down. Compare their prices to Message Labs, how competetive are they? I haven't actually looked, not being concerned with such vulgarities as cash and all. >My stance is either go for hosted solution or do it yourself, don't mix. Not >both. But that box in the perimeter is a requirement. Perhaps it will be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >this which leads to only one conclusion I think: it's not for them. And >tryong to do both is a little madness. I like the DIY path, in which case Edge would be deployed as the licensing would be competetive with FrontBridge/Message Labs etc. There is the 3rd option of an appliance that you can stick into the DMZ and then have it deliver mail to a CAS/HT on which you deploy the anti spam (it's a monad script in the scripts directory) agents. That way you have a non MS appliance which pleases certain quarters in the business and you also have a 2nd line of defence on a box that isn't your MB. >Thx for your time. > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> What do you want; protection or just another box in a perimiter? > MS are pushing Hosted in a big way so if the take up isn't high you > can bet your boots it'll come down. Compare their prices to Message > Labs, how competetive are they? I haven't actually looked, not being > concerned with such vulgarities as cash and all. When in such a state, maitain it! :-) Comparing vulgarities has been increasingly difficult due to sales tactics. I bet they are competitively priced, that's not the main issue, the main issue is the price difference with the DIY solution (combined with a "healty" distrust for people who want to be your service "partner" for a price (sounds like another profession , I don't know ...). The main beef they have, and when looking at the numbers is I have to concur, is all pricing is based on bundling of modules/suites/funcionality which makes a decent price for one function hard to get and wich leads to issues when you don't throw out everything you have for something else. The price impact that would have on roll outs, changes etc ... is easily forgotten ... My advice to anyone trying to break into managed services is make your licensing/pricing so easy, transparant and competitive that one should be a fool not to use it instead of the entire hard mess that world seems to be today that comparing is almost a "mission". You might laugh or cry at it but I've known companies to buy stuff just te be done with the entire hassle of trying to get the better deal. Sort of like taking the blue pill or the red pill ... When you have some good staff, some money, well you can get a lot of stuff done at a price any service vendor is yet to break. If you don't have any staff or bad ones well yes ... takes their wages and throw them in to the equation. How ever the price of a small good IT staf that runs most of the stuff versus hosting it all ... well that I'm not convinced about. Or is the quality and supply of good It staff that low? I do appreciate you opinions. Thx for sharing. >>My stance is either go for hosted solution or do it yourself, don't mix. >>Not [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >>> >>> What do you want; protection or just another box in a perimiter? >> MS are pushing Hosted in a big way so if the take up isn't high you >> can bet your boots it'll come down. Compare their prices to Message [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >stuff versus hosting it all ... well that I'm not convinced about. Or is the >quality and supply of good It staff that low? I have been quite surprised about IT staff since I started a new job. Most I have met are very keen but I have been disturbed that we're getting business from companies who employ staff that I would expect to know the stuff. I guess it's just a case of the staff requirements exceeding the ability of the market to supply appropriately skilled staff. It'll balance out in the end. >I do appreciate you opinions. Thx for sharing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.