 |
 |
Actually, I disagree with moving this to the forum web page. This group has a larger audience (361 subscribers vs. under 300 for the forums), and there is a perfectly good search engine for the mailing list as well (http://list.msu.edu/archives/msunag.html). So, unless I have miscounted the forums somehow this is a broader audience. Moving on to the points mentioned. There was a long process where the merits of this type of system were debated (http://list.msu.edu/archives/emailfuture.html). The end result of these discussions were as follows: 1. This would require a centralized AD infrastructure. As this is not politically feasible, this limits mail to a Sendmail type architecture where all the users are local to the mail server rather than a directory-enabled architecture. 2. Should the directory infrastructure problem be addressed, the requirements for the mail system would be large enough to eliminate most options (e.g. Exchange). And make the rest extraordinarily complex. 3. Since a uniform solution is not currently possible, MSU is pursuing a solution that puts a new face on the existing e-mail system. As far as testing goes, this is the public beta phase. The interface has been widely announced and feedback from many different constituencies are being solicited. A formal testing suite would be rather nice, but I do not see that happening soon. The final point you make about resources is one of the main points why individual units have their own mail and AD systems. I have several resource accounts that are used for many different applications, rooms, and other items for checkout. Assuming that a single system could be created for all of MSU, every unit would need to create a number of these accounts. The current process involves the transfer of finances every month for every account that is not directly linked to a person (e.g. departments). Perhaps if this requirement were lifted, then one requirement would be eliminated. However, I understand why this was put in place as well. -- +-------------------------------------------+ | Michael Surato | | College of Arts and Letters | | Michigan State University | | 320 Linton Hall | | East Lansing, MI 48824 | | Voice: (517) 353-0778 Fax: (517) 355-0159 | +-------------------------------------------+ >>> On 9/18/2008 at 10:28 AM, MSU Network Administrators Group wrote: > Folks, > I have been following these "threads" for the past couple of days and I have > the following comments: > > 1) I think this information, related to the "fitness" of a beta product, > should be moved to the forum, where these comments were requested to be > sent. It would simplify the gathering of information for all parties. > Since at this point they will need to "search" various areas before > understanding if they have all of the information. In an effort to > "practice what I am suggesting", all other comments related to this subject > will be posted into the forum related to the beta testing of the mail > system. > > 2) I happen to agree with the points that were mentioned by Lawrence - > Lawrence, I hope that I do "justice" to your point of view, if not, please > call or send me a note, so that I might clarify on the forum. Back to the > topic - in summary - we need to have a cross MSU University common system, > which supports all parties and doesn't require individual units to manage or > maintain aspects of that system. This same system needs the flexibility to > support collaboration with "entities (businesses, communities, other > universities) while maintaining the necessary security (personal, > information and hacking) and protections for intellectual property. > > In addition to those requirements, we also need to consider who is being > held accountable for systems that don't meet the points mentioned above. As > an example - if we were to have a situation where systems were compromised, > who would be held accountable, if it was determined to be on a server mail > system, which was locally hosted by a specific university unit? > > I don't know the answer to that question and it isn't central to the issue > of the beta testing of the mail system, however it is a question that should > be addressed in a different forum or thread. > > 3) Back to the beta testing of the system. I would recommend the following: > a) Compare the functionality to the defined requirements > b) Request non-IT people to test the functionality (use the users that > are most interested in a new system and let them tell you if it is meeting > the need. > c) If determining those users isn't possible, then create some focus > groups - again from non-IT people, so you can gain the feedback you are > requesting > d) Have a series of test cases, which would map back to the requirements > and then determine if they "pass or fail" > e) Complete the testing and then determine the final course of action. > > 4) Comments on the system, as I have reviewed it to date: > a) Synching of calendars doesn't function as defined - if a user were to > create an appointment on a PDA device and then the support staff were to > create an appointment - synching would "replace" the appointments - which > would result in the lose of data for the user. Per the HORDE site, this is > a known issue that isn't expected to be addressed until sometime in 2009. > For my organization this is a "show stopper", since this is basic > functionality which is available in many products today. > b) Support for various PDAs/ phones - I didn't see any support for those > items > c) The help isn't up and running, so I was not able to locate any > material that would address these issues. I needed to "search" the HORDE > site to determine if it was or was not part of the planned installation. > d) Does this have the ability to create "resources", which is something > that I am familiar with from an exchange and lotus notes type mail system? > Again, this would be a show stopper for my organization as we have the need > to support a complex and share those resources with five other units who are > involved with supporting those resources (in this case we need to coordinate > with the following - the college, Residential Life, Dining Services, > Facilities and Housing Operations). > e) Also, I have not "tested" the system much yet, however here are two > other requirements, which are needed by my users. > i) Ability to "easily" attach files and have an acceptable limit > (10meg) for the attachments. > ii) Have the ability to easily create groups or lists and then have > them available to others. > > I look forward to your comments in the forum. > > http://forums.msu.edu/showthread.php?t=122 > > > Respectfully, > > Jeanne > > > On 9/18/08 8:58 AMGMT-04:00, "Steve Devine" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Gwen Pearson wrote: > >> Um. Isn't it a breach of the MSU privacy policy to report what a user > >> has accessed? > >> > >> (even if it is amusing?) > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> Gwen > >> > >> > > Probably .. my apologies to all, Mr Scott included. I assumed he had > > accessed some MSU email system at some time yesterday and so therefore > > it was no longer a private manner. Also not to put too fine a point on > > it but I revealed the absence of access. Regardless, your point is a > > good one Gwen again I apologize. > > /sd > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Steven Devine <[log in to unmask]> > >>> Date: September 18, 2008 8:25:59 AM GMT-04:00 > >>> To: [log in to unmask] > >>> Subject: Re: [MSUNAG] Some thoughts about a new email system for MSU > >>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask] > >>> > >>> You had quite the rant yesterday about our failure to provide up to > >>> date technology for the MSU community. The posting that started this > >>> thread was a comment by Lawrence Bates about our new web based email > >>> system: https://beta.mail.msu.edu > >>> I was interested in seeing if you had encountered any adverse issues > >>> while using this new system (after all it is beta). So I looked for > >>> entries in our various logs for what may have happened to you to > >>> trigger such a venomous response. > >>> Turns out Mr Scott I see no log entries for your netid within the new > >>> system. None at all. > >>> Given this data it appears to me as if you have passed a pretty > >>> severe judgment about a product you have yet to try. > >>> > >>> Steve Devine > >>> > >> > > > > -- > Jeanne G. Carey, PMP > Michigan State University > Residential College in the Arts and Humanities (RCAH) > C210B Snyder > East Lansing, MI 48825 > > Phone +517-884-6001 > Fax: +517-884-1244 > E-mail: [log in to unmask] > Website: rcah.msu.edu > GMT-4 > > >