MSU Listserv


MSUNAG Archives

MSUNAG Archives


MSUNAG@LIST.MSU.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV at MSU

LISTSERV at MSU

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG Home

MSUNAG  August 2007

MSUNAG August 2007

Subject:

Re: Five more US schools go to GMail for email, apps

From:

"Harper, Chris" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Harper, Chris

Date:

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:39:51 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (176 lines)

I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of forwarding address domains if
at all possible.

Just some data collected from the mail.msu.edu user base as a whole,
that says something like 15,000 of 150,000 users forward their e-mail.
Of these users, here are the top 10 used e-mail domains that users
choose to forward their e-mail to:

@gmail.com
@hotmail.com
@yahoo.com
Etc, etc...

Would any data like this be available to this list?

Taking this even further would be to analyze this in a students vs.
fac/staff manor, but I realize this part may be difficult.

Appreciate the consideration.

Regards,

Chris Harper
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SPECIALIST
University Relations / Michigan State University
401 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1047
Email: [log in to unmask] / Direct: 517.355.9980
Web: http://ur.msu.edu / Cell: 517.290.5496
 
-----Original Message-----
From: MSU Network Administrators Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Steve Bogdanski
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 9:19 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Five more US schools go to GMail for email, apps

While there have been both noteworthy pros and cons mentioned about this
issue so far, it seems that many people are missing another big point.
I always thought that the largest issue most MSU members have had with
mail.msu.edu is available storage. The 128MB quota is just too low for
most students and faculty, which gives them two options: either download
their email to a local computer (and lose backups and the ability to
access it anywhere) or forward to another account with more space
available. That is what makes Gmail, Yahoo! and Hotmail so attractive,
they offer far larger amounts of storage (2GB-5GB). Currently about 2/3
to 3/4 of our users (out of ~1,300) forward their MSU mail to our system
and our storage allocations are a little more liberal than MSU's
(faculty/staff get 512MB and students get 256MB). Now whether it is
financially feasible for MSU to offer even a modest increase in mail
storage space is a whole other question.

Outside of space constraints, I do believe Nick is correct that the next
biggest issue is the front-end interface with things such as additional
features (calendar, IM, etc) being a much lower priority. There is also
the difference in opinions between faculty/staff and students. A good
example of this is calendaring features. Our faculty and staff love it
and many could not live without it, where as students have always had
access to the same features but rarely ever use them.
--

Stephen Bogdanski
Network Support
College of Veterinary Medicine
Michigan State University


>>> On 8/30/2007 at 8:36 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I would like to echo John's comments about keeping the system in
house...
>
> I think the backend system that mail.msu.edu is extremely powerful,
and is
> still extremely well performing considering its load (and load of
spam, of
> course). E-Mail arrives as expected, and is unaltered when using the
SSL-POP
> connection.
>
> Investment needs to happen on the front-end. Put a good web-designer,

> usability expert, and good developer in front of mail.msu.edu and have
them
> at it. It won't take much to redesign the 'mail.msu.edu' front-end.
You
> could probably have a contest among the students to design the
template, if
> you want. Many of the features that people like about the gMail
system is
> related to its front-end. The front-end is a sleek, AJAX interface
that does
> what it needs to do, requiring minimal interaction from the user to
use. It
> mirrors traditional mail clients such as Eudora or Outlook in that it
dosen't
> require 5 clicks to see your email (rather it may require at most
two).
>
> -Nick Kwiatkowski
> MSU Telecom Systems
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: MSU Network Administrators Group on behalf of John Simpkins
> Sent: Wed 8/29/2007 6:58 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Five more US schools go to GMail for email, apps
>
>
>
> Here's some clarification on my views, since my original post
contained
> a conceptual error, as well as wording that is not explicitly
contained
> in Google's various TOS pages. I'm glad to learn that Gmail won't be
> using any personal communications in any way other than to provide the
> Gmail service; this is something I overlooked.
>
> However, as written, the TOS in Google Docs and Spreadsheets
(presumably
> a service which Google, the University, or both will promote to MSU
> students) gives Google a great amount of privilege in its legal usage
of
> user-submitted content. Though they state that only content made
> available to "members of the public" is fair game, they do not
> explicitly outline the group(s) that this term encompasses.
Logically,
> "members of the public" could include recipients of email in which a
> link to a Google document could be contained.
>
> Further, in conjunction with Google's Universal terms of service, any
> content submitted or received (regardless of which Google service the
> information resides upon) is subject to this clause: "Google reserves
> the right (but shall have no obligation) to pre-screen, review, flag,
> filter, modify, refuse or remove any or all Content from any Service."
>
> Though Google does not have an "unlimited" license to the
user-submitted
> content, it has wide-reaching rights, per its terms of service, to
make
> use of that content in ways which are violative of University
> information-handling principles and precedent.
>
> I can understand that this offer is attractive in the face of
> skyrocketing IT costs, but it sets a precedent that is deeply
> troubling. As more information is synthesized, manipulated, and
> transferred over computers and networks, a question of precedent
arises
> as to the role of the University in the management of its information.

> My comment about money in the first email was inspired by my belief
that
> it is the University's responsibility as a public institution to keep
> its information and knowledge from being given freely to a private
> entity. I pay the University tuition. At least a few of these
dollars
> go toward the current IT system that the University maintains. Would
I
> see a substantial savings in my tuition if the University contracted
> information handling services out to an organization? Even if so,
what
> kind of precedent does outsourcing of University data set for the role
> of a public institution of higher education? Upon invention of the
> filing cabinet, did the University ever contemplate outsourcing of
> records storage to a private company that owned a warehouse full of
> filing cabinets? The United States has long had a public postal
> system. There were good reasons for this, and the system has served
us
> well. The integrity of personal communication is essential to the
> progressive nature of a public institution like Michigan State, and
> given the nature and terms of Google's offer, I cannot see a reason
why
> it would be in Google's interest to maintain this integrity.
>
> There is no such thing as a free lunch.
>
> -John

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2023
June 2023
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
December 2021
January 2019
August 2018
June 2018
May 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager