Conference 7.286::digital

Stick a fork in Digital's messaging products: they are done.

I am stunned.  Not that Digital has chosen to switch to Microsoft Exchange,
a move which is probably reasonable, but at the idea that anyone in the
world will ever buy any Digital messaging product ever again.  I know
Signe: we worked together years ago.  She is smart, competent, and totally
committed to her job.  But even she can't believe that Digital has *ANY*
level of commitment to those products.

Well, my job just got a lot simpler.  If ever I am asked to recommend a
messaging system, I know what I will recommend, because it will be what
I am using every day, because it will be what Digital has chosen for me
to use on the tools and platform that Digital feels makes me the most
productive, and because the competition will have a field day if I try
to recommend anything else: I am recommending Microsoft Exchange.

But, of course, I will probably never be asked to recommend a messaging
system.  I have not been asked to recommend a messaging system in the
last few years, because all my customers are making the same choice that
Digital just made.  No one even asks anymore what messaging system, or
word processing product, or spreadsheet program, or operating system, to
buy and install: they automatically choose Microsoft products.

So, does Microsoft Exchange work on Alpha NT?  If not, when will it?

-- Ken Moreau

    I use a UNIX workstation served by a UNIX server.  How does Exchange
    impact me?
    
    Mark
    

    re -.1
    
    You will be one of the very few *not* on the supported corporate
    network for E-Mail. Much like VAXmail on MTS. Tolerated and that
    is about it.
    
    The article is a joke. Within it you can detect the infighting.
    And just think that messaging is one of our growth paths. Yea, right.
    Connectivity and messaging? Seems that the big three will bundle
    messaging with their O/S offerings. That makes connectivity easy.
    So what is left? Backbone services? Better start revamping MAILbus
    in a hurry. That looks like the last crown jewel for Digital in the
    connectivity/messaging/networks space.
    
    Sigh.
    Mike Z.

Re. 0

>    I was planning on moving to TeamLinks Mail but I guess I'll change my
>    mind and wait until Microsoft Exchange arrives.  Our Resellers weren't

I would still make the move. With the way things are (tight expenses), I am 
positive that we'll still have ALL-IN-1 and VAXmail for time to come.

We in MCS are suppose to be spearheading this deployment and I don't see any 
time soon that we could do away with our VMS clusters.

Besides the servers, there was a brief survey done here in Stow and very few 
people had the HW to deploy W95 on the desk.

/OLD

RE: .1

>So, does Microsoft Exchange work on Alpha NT?  If not, when will it?

	Yes, it does. It shipped to manufacturing with Intel/MIPS/Alpha
	and I think maybe PowerPC bits. Intel and Alpha seem to have
	gotten the most testing.

	FWIW, the group I am in is incorporating voicemail technology
	into Microsoft Exchange. (One inbox for email/fax/voicemail)

							mike

  If you want a wide variety of clients, move to POP-3, or IMAP-4 mail clients.
  You'll find hundreds of these on all platforms, pc's, mac's, and every unix
  flavor you can imagine.

  If you want standards and the internet (without some ugly gateway), look
  at POP-3 and IMAP-4 mail servers, and an SMTP transport system (like sendmail
  V8).

  Can you get these servers from Digital?  You bet. 
 
       http://ibgzko.zko.dec.com/ias/ias.htm


                                 Mark

  P.S.
   I won't start on about Microsoft Exchange, the anti-christ, or anything
   else that might get me into trouble.
  

    re .6

>       http://ibgzko.zko.dec.com/ias/ias.htm

    What about for Intel NT? I've tried http://ibgmail.ljo.dec.com/ and its
    links to no avail. Now that I'm comfy with NT, I'd like to move off
    VAXmail.

    Thanks,
    Lisa

    The very sad parts about .0 are:
    
    _ We cannot make any money selling Exchange, I was told we have no 
    agreement with Microsoft (though we can sell Lotus Notes :) :), 
    so the only money we can make is selling Alpha systems.
    
    _ As a connectivity company, one would think that Digital would have a
    mixed environment, that is Exchange on NT, POP3/IMAP on Unix, ALL-IN-1
    on VMS and some department with Lotus Notes.  Thus we could really tell 
    our customers: we know how to do it, come to visit us and we will show 
    you.  Instead the message we are sending is: gee, it was too difficult 
    so we went to Exchange only with NT only, so please forget Digital Unix, 
    VMS and POP3/IMAP standart.  I really liked our connectivity strategy
    but it seems so far away now.
    
    _ As an Internet company, one would think we would like to have a lot
    of Digital Unix system running POP3 or IMAP servers. Thus we could say
    to our customers: the Intranet, we know, look what we are using.
    Instead we are sending the message that we don't believe in these
    internet standarts, the Microsoft Exchange proprietary solution is
    better.  Now it's not going to be difficult for companies like SUN or
    HP to beat us on these markets.  I can clearly see the pictures where
    SUN announces the fatest Mail server on the market on their 64 bit
    platform :( :(
    
    
    _ The real sad part is that I am pretty sure that Exchange will never
    be installed everywhere in the corporation and that we will run for a
    long while with a mixed environment.  What a bad marketing message we
    are sending ....
    
    Thierry (Working on connecting cc:Mail to MailWorks and ALL-IN-1 :) :)

    re -.1
    
    Eh? The quote is correct. NT == Exchange == NT.
    
    Digital -
    Unix,SMTP,IMAP,POP,OpenVMS,ALL-IN-1,MailWORKS,X.400,NT,Exchange
    bits and bytes thereof.
    
    The confusion lies in our management statements that openly say we
    are moving to Exchange in a big way. 50k plus clients. The
    infastructure, desktop, network, servers will not be amiable to
    Exchange 50k plus, any time soon.
    
    -Mike Z.

>    I use a UNIX workstation served by a UNIX server.  How does Exchange
>    impact me?
    
Exchange only runs on Windows NT.  Microsoft continues down the arrogant
path of "buy everything from us, and everything will work together",
reminiscent of Digital in the late 80's (wonder when they will experience
the same fall from grace).

Any non-Microsoft operating environment will always be a wart in the
Exchange Mail picture.

Ram

    

>    
>Exchange only runs on Windows NT.
>

This is, put kindly, an oversimplification.  Like many server systems, the
Exchange *Server* only runs on Windows NT.  There are clients for many
operating environments, including WNT, Windows 95, Windows 3.x, Macintosh, and
so forth.  For that matter, using the client, I have better, more seamless
access to a wealth of mail protocols, far superior to the hodge-podge Digital
has today.

BobW

>     What about for Intel NT?

  The clients are already there.  NT is a little behind on IMAP-4, and some
  other internet type servers (But not for long).

  For servers (POP3, SMTP) try:

  EMWAC(commercial)or SLmail95 (shareware), or NT mail(commercial)

  or ConnectSoft, 

  or go to Microsoft's tools for NT page:
        http://internet.microsoft.com/tools/tools.htm
        (under here you'll find IMail (SMTP,POP3), EMWAC, Netscape MAIL server
         (POP3, SMTP), NTmail, Post.office etc. etc. etc.)


                             Mark

    
    	At HLO in Hudson Ma, we are trying to get everyone who is running
    Windows NT, to use Teamlinks. We plan on evaluating Microsoft Exchange
    and probably switch over to that. Depending on the group/user community
    its a big win and makes people more productive. People who are running
    Windows NT, also have Microsoft office on there systems as well. With
    Teamlinks, you can send and receive MS Word, Excel, Project, Powerpoint,
    etc... documents without any problems and view them in Teamlinks mail.
    	There are groups in Digital who are going strickly Windows NT and
    are getting rid of there OpenVMS systems. So as a support organization
    we have to provide them with a MAIL utility. If we don't we end up
    supporting there Windows NT environment and there OpenVMS environment.
    Besides it isn't cost effective to support TWO environments when you
    only need ONE. When I say cost effective I mean the whole thing. The
    floor space used in the computer rooms are smaller, which means less
    electricty, air conditioning, field service maintenance contracts,
    etc...
    	Another thing we are suppose to get out of this corporate strategy
    is the ability to receive mail as "user@digital.com", no more
    "user@site.mts.dec.com". So you can move anywhere you like inside the
    company and still receive mail. Without changing and notifying everbody
    because you switched jobs. What a concept, get business cards printed
    once and they are good even if you switch sites.
    
    Ron

Ron:

> Another thing we are suppose to get out of this corporate strategy
> is the ability to receive mail as "user@digital.com", no more
> "user@site.mts.dec.com". So you can move anywhere you like inside the
> company and still receive mail. Without changing and notifying everbody
> because you switched jobs. What a concept, get business cards printed
> once and they are good even if you switch sites.

  Don't look now, but we didn't need "Exchange" to do that, we
  only needed the corporate will to get it done. And, since that
  seems to be in short supply, we needed someone to do a midnight
  hack. The test of "me@digital.com" has been under way for several
  months now; see LJSRV2::INTERNET_TOOLS for details.

  I have no opinion (yet) whether Exchange is good or bad, but I
  do know that the world existed before Microsoft and they're
  not the sole fount of good ideas.

                                   Atlant

    
    	Left out that the mail .po files are actually on a Alpha Server
    running Digital Unix, using Mailworks.
    
    Ron

    The Digital press release stated unambiguously that
    Digital was moving entirely to Exchange without mentioning *any* of
    Digital's backbone products (MAILbus 400 or X.500).  The fact that this
    is an exact replay of the message in the press release Digital released
    back in the fall (with a quote from a different VP) says to me that
    this is a message that Digital wants to send:  "Digital is a hardware
    company.  We only want to push Alpha boxes, and maybe get some
    short-term bucks with SI or MCS consulting moving customers off of and
    away from our products. We have no commitment to our excellent messaging 
    products. What three-tier messaging? There is no need for integration 
    with a backbone or X.500, just replace everything with Exchange.  Forget
    X.500 directory services."
    
    Feeling like Charlie Brown falling for the "football" trick again,
    
    - Dave

In a joint press conference this afternoon with Microsoft CEO Bill Gates and 
MCI CEO Bert Roberts, broadcast on DVN, announcing the latest "enterprise 
alliance," Bob Palmer said that we already have 3000 employees using Exchange
and will have more than 40,000 within twelve months.

50,000... 40,000... hmmm...

>    What about for Intel NT? I've tried http://ibgmail.ljo.dec.com/ and its
>    links to no avail. Now that I'm comfy with NT, I'd like to move off
>    VAXmail.

	As Mark said, NT Intel and Alpha have both POP3 and SMTP Servers.  The
  Reading mail group has a field test version running on NT Intel and Alpha.
  In addition, I have NTMail on the Internet Roadmap.  Software.com also have one
  and there are a number of other companies that have them.

	The reason that you didn't find them on the Software Distribution Server
  is the the Reading mail people didn't ask me to put it on there and it's been
  hard to find anyone there making decisions that will stick.  The NTMail product
  is there, but you can't get to it yet as I haven't made available the pointers
  to the evaluation products list.  That's about to change as the Internet
  Roadmap is finally shipping.  Specific discussion of these products should be
  moved to the Internet_Tools notes conference on LJSRV2.  I don't read this
  conference unless prompted.

	Note that what I discussed here are server products that run on both
  Intel and Alpha Windows NT and both NT Workstation and NT Server.  These are
  not clients.  POP Clients are available for a variety of operating systems.
  Exchange Server ONLY runs on NT Server for both Intel and Alpha.  You still
  need an exchange client which ONLY runs on Microsoft's O/S's.  I don't think
  there's an Exchange client for either UNIX's or VMS's.  There MAY be one for
  the Mac.

			Danny

    It's quite clear that Digital senior management still doesn't have a
    clue why customers buy computers and so is willing to cede total
    control of the application software and therefore their (and our) own
    future to Bill Gates. Digital relative to Microsoft is following the
    post-war pattern of Eastern European countries relative to the Soviet
    Union. 

    to those who are saying we can only make money selling Alpha's that run
    Exchange, think again..... SI and MCS now have over 600 people
    certified in NT solutions.  We can help customers assess, migrate and
    support an Exchnage implementation.  Exchange might also cause the need
    to upgrade the customers network infrastructure.  Then we sell and
    deliver network design and construction and maybe even some network
    products..  I encourage the pessimists in this string to take a slow
    deep breath, and get focused.  

    But where is our "connectivity" strategy ? How are we going to convince
    customers that we know how to make systems work together ?
    
    	Thierry

    Hi All,
    
    Our press releases are having an affect and our customers are now
    starting to ask questions.  I have a topic in the IOSG::ALL-IN-1
    conference 1862, you will see how difficult it is getting to sell our
    solutions.
    
    When Bob Palmer was in Australia he was asked if MCS would be sold off. 
    From what people told me that if it made business sense so be it !! 
    
    Can someone explain to me where are we heading ?  What is our vision ?
    What are our markets ?  Would it be better to sell off our messaging
    groups to Microsoft ?
    
    Regards,
    
    Sunil

    The recent press releases and Bill, Bob and Bert Show were brought to
    you by the NT Server, Multi-Vendor Customer Services and Microsoft
    Affinity Groups. None of these groups have any metrics nor receive any
    rewards for selling Digital software. Similarly there are many field
    folk who receive no reward for promoting Microsoft products.
    
    For the continuing saga of Digital messaging please refer to:
    
    http://www.digital.com/info/messaging/mbi_intro.htm
    
    and watch for the May 7th announcement from the Internet Software
    Business Unit previously known as the Connectivity Software Business
    Unit.

    Our VISION only seems to valid for six months.  During September 1995
    we released a number of Software Strategy Statements.  With the sell
    off of ACCESSWORKS, which I assume DB Integrator is part of, and the
    statement to use Exchange I assume that a number of these documents are
    no longer valid.  Is anyone responsible for updating these documents so
    we know what to tell customers?
    
    Are we moving to the Compaq, AST, ALR, etc. model?  If so, I don't
    think the Company needs to have 50,000 people to sell PCs or equivalent
    systems.
    
    It appears that our time is limited here and that's it's only a matter
    of time that if you're not doing PCs or Alpha products that you better
    be looking for other opportunities?  We don't seem to be a total
    solutions vendor anymore. 

    
    
                    What You Don't Need and Want Is What You Get
    
                                    *****
    
    I recently attended a Microsoft presentation about their Back Office
    Concept. One statement was that a heterogeneous environment with lots
    of interfaces is not manageable (at least not for Microsoft).
    In the course of this presentation all of the well-known server
    systems like IBM, HP, SUN, Siemens, Novell vanished and were replaced
    by NT-Servers. DEC-systems did not even appear on any slide.
    All the different desktops were made NT-Clients.
    In the end we had the homogeneous NT-world.
    
    Good for Microsoft, but not for the world !
    
    And now this deal with Exchange, a product that has not even been
    released. Digital with its 25 years of expertise in messaging
    integration exchanges its unique product portfolio for a no-name.
    All this takes place at a time when E-mail is considered to be a
    growing market with increasing demand for X.400/X.500.
    
    Good for Microsoft, but not for Digital !!
    
    The question is - what's next, ALL-IN-1 ?
    
    Artur

    
    re .all
    
    Well yapping about it in here is not going to do any good.
    
    Seems we have a disconnect at the vp level when it comes to
    implementation of plans. First we do messaging, then we do
    connectivity, then we do neither. Yawn.
    
    re .22 "-< we sell services too you know >-"
    
    So do a lot of other people for a lot less money. I say the sweet
    spot in the messaging business is the departmental level. The less
    than a thousand clients connecting to whatever. Building of an
    E-Mail utility or infastructure. There is a ton of money to be made
    here. Only problem here is, we don't go after it because it does not
    pay enough. And guess what, when one department gets something that
    works.... well, there goes your enterprise.
    
    Some people don't think mail is important? Hah. Look at internet, look
    at Novell with GroupWise.
    
    I think it is to late for digital. Great products....mixed messages.
    
    -Later.
    Mike Z.

    What will the cost for implementing this be?
    
    Benefits?   
    
    Will implementation work on ULTRIX? UNIX? OpenVMS?

    Some features of MS Exchange....            
    
    Directory Services - Automatic routing by name (Vs Account,Node or
                         Location). (Employee Name@Digital.Com)
    
    Public Folders/Shared Folders - You can create a report and post it in
                                    public folder so that others can access
                                    it.
    Forms - Electronic Forms, used in place of paper forms.
    
    Group Scheduling - You can request meetings, send meeting
                       notifications, view other users schedule to see free
                       or busy time etc.
    
    Send source documents - Powerpoint, word....the receipient can view or
                            edit.(Vs postscript)
    
    I think a lot of us in future will be using Group Ware products. Such
    products may or may not be available on ULTRIX/UNIX/OpenVMS etc. 

    Recently while playing with NT for the first time i stumbled across the
    basis for this press release! It seems that IS/GPS/CCS (whatever they
    are called this week) are implementing (NOW) a world-wide NT mail
    system using Team-Links that will allow a registed user to log-on
    anywhere in the world to their IS/GPS/CCS controlled environment! Wave
    one is already going and wave two by the end of the fiscal, i
    understand they are picking up the remains of the MCS implementation
    and rolling it out to the rest of the corporation. In Europe several
    sites are already going and my site (SBP in England) is scheduled for
    wave two (by the end of this fiscal!!!) Of course they havent told
    anyone yet, in case we get too excited!!
    
    Gerald

re: .-1

	The CCS pilot you refer to involves Exchange, not "Team-Links". See 
chefs::ms-exchange or http://www-ccs.wro.dec.com/NT/ for more information.

	C'Ya,
	Wayne

    I don't see anything in .30 that couldn't have been done in Digital a 
    long time ago (three years?) if the "powers that be" had been committed
    to investing in Digital's end user computing, business systems, and I.T
    infrastructure in general, to bring them into the late 1980s using PCs,
    Teamlinks, and Mailbus. And then shortly afterward they could have done
    it with Linkworks instead (or as well). But history shows those in
    charge did nothing till it was too late. Now there's no money left.
    
    [Btw: Three years is just a wild guess. I know nothing, I just use this
    stuff now, and have known about it for what seems like ages.]
    
    regards
    john

    
    As a member of the ALL-IN-1 development team I am saddended to hear
    Bob Palmer talk of moving 40,000 Digital user to Exchange in the next
    12 months.  If this quote is true then Digital must be getting out of
    Office Software, it only makes sense to me in that way.
    
    I could argue over functionality, reliability, running costs but when
    it comes down to it Senior Digital staff obviously don't care.  They
    are more interested in selling Alpha than software(whether rightly or
    wrongly)
    
    "Please Microsoft, whatever it takes"
    
    Mike

    
    As a member of SI, I really should not care. I implement. So why do
    I care? Well, one reason is that if I want to do SI type work with
    messaging products, MAPI, VIM, whatever, one of my primary tools is
    Microsoft Visual Basic. OK. Let us extend that form designer on
    Exchange a little farther.... Ops, sorry Mr. Mrs. Customer VB doesn't
    run on your Exchange Alpha box.....
    
    Where is the disconnect?
    
    -Mike Z.
    
    

RE: .35

	You should keep up with DECWET::WINDOWS-NT. Been some interesting
	discussions in there lately.

							mike

    
    re .36
    
    It ain't there TODAY.
    
    -Mike Z.

RE: .25

>    The recent press releases and Bill, Bob and Bert Show were brought to
>    you by the NT Server, Multi-Vendor Customer Services and Microsoft
>    Affinity Groups. None of these groups have any metrics nor receive any
>    rewards for selling Digital software. Similarly there are many field

A small clarification. MCS gets quite a bit of money by selling license 
subscriptions and media and doc of Digital products. We do resell some the 
same for third party products but in no way close to what we do on our own 
products.

>    Some features of MS Exchange....            

That's the power of Microsoft marketing...I guess they can make
it seem like they invented all of this stuff.
    
>    Directory Services - Automatic routing by name (Vs Account,Node or
>                         Location). (Employee Name@Digital.Com)

Digital has had this for years now.  First with the MailBus DDS product
and now with X.500.  I have always been able to address people by
Name/Site code (i.e. Helen Principio @ZKO) with TeamLinks and the
only reason that we could not use employee name@digital.com was not
a limitation of TeamLinks/MailWorks/ALL-IN-1, but rather that these
were just not set up for general use.
    
>    Public Folders/Shared Folders - You can create a report and post it in
>                                    public folder so that others can access
>                                    it.

ALL-IN-1 has had this feature for a very long time now.

>    Forms - Electronic Forms, used in place of paper forms.

TeamRoute, a product that works with TeamLinks/MailWorks/ALL-IN-1
implements this functionality.
    
>    Group Scheduling - You can request meetings, send meeting
>                       notifications, view other users schedule to see free
>                       or busy time etc.

Again, ALL-IN-1 had this functionality within it and the TeamLinks Office
product.  The office product ships a calendaring/scheduling product
that is integrated with TeamLinks.
    
>    Send source documents - Powerpoint, word....the receipient can view or
>                            edit.(Vs postscript)

Again, TeamLinks has this capability.  In fact TeamLinks is integrated
with quite a few other PC products and this integration allows you to
send these documents from their native applications (such a Word) and also
allows you to store these various files in your TeamLinks file cabinet.

I believe this note reflects one of the biggest problems with our
own messaging products.  Here we have a set a products that does all the
above mentioned things, yet internally we don't even know it or use it.
Our messaging products seem to be one of our best kept secrets.  Yet,
despite ourselves we have managed to sell them into a fairly large 
customer base.

>    I think a lot of us in future will be using Group Ware products. Such
>    products may or may not be available on ULTRIX/UNIX/OpenVMS etc.

Digital has ALL-IN-1 and MailWorks on OpenVMS and MailWorks for UNIX.
These server products all work with TeamLinks and provide this type
of Groupware product set.

There is still a market for our messaging products at least for current 
OpenVMS and UNIX customers.  However, if we make it look like we are
abandoning our own products, how long will these customers be willing
to stay with these Digital products?

Helen

Even Vista, Philips internally developed mainframe based OA system, provided 
most, if not all, of these facilities absolutely years ago!  I hate it when 
Microsnot take on some idea that has been around for years and then claim that 
they invented it.

Chris.

    Being first or best has never been an assurance of success. Having the
    right combination of features, timing, and corporate willingness has
    allowed Microsoft to become fabulously successful with products with a
    rarely best-in-class.
    
    Digital has had door-to-door Email for more than a dozen years. (Nearly
    every person in the corporation has an Email account.) It's frightening
    to realize how many companies don't have universal Email or who have it
    and don't use it. Digital had the technology, demonstrated how it could
    work internally, but failed to translate that into an ability to
    generate market demand. (This product we're using here, Notes, could
    have defined and owned the groupware market 10 years ago.) The reasons
    why those breakthroughs didn't occur are well-catalogued in this Notes
    conference.

I'd like to thank Helen for outlining how we have had all these 
features for years. I was wondering whether any of the readers 
of this conference would notice that Microsoft is making our 
"legacy" features new again. My experience with all of the 
Microsoft product hype is that, with the exception of the GUI 
management interface, we have (and have had) the features and 
actually invented most of them. 

Many internal Digital users shunned ALL-IN-1 years ago and have
never taken a second look since we implemented TeamLinks and 
client/server capabilities. These users have continued to speak ill
of our products and now the corporation has decided to agree with
them. Of course, VMS mail goes away with the VMS systems, lest anyone
forget. 

The thing that most of the detractors have failed to notice is that
our internal mail systems work and have worked for as long as I have 
been an employee (16 years). Never has one of my mail messages gone
astray or been corrupted.

By using TeamLinks as the front end to Digital's electronic mail 
system, we have the best of both worlds: a state-of-the-art Windows
or MAC client with an equaled feature set and servers that do the 
job they are expected to do.

We trust our internal mail technoligies implicitly. I hope that we 
will be able to continue to do so. Digital runs its business on a 
working electronic messaging system. It will be an incredible 
challenge to replace this infrastructure within 12 months. 

On a final note, the revenue impact of the press release that resulted
in the Network World article has yet to be calculated. I believe that
it will be significant, to say the least! I hope that Digital senior 
management will issue a follow on press release to clarify any
missing or misinformation in the April 2 release.

Signe Maximous

    While we're on the subject of things now making money for MS which
    Digital invented but failed to follow through successfully:
    
    Is there anyone reading this who (a) remembers Livelinks (as in CDA, as
    used in DECwrite/DECdecision/etc) (b) knows what MS OLE is (c) can
    explain what the difference is (other than MS marketing) ?
    
    bye for now
    john

    In our Q4 FY95 Digital Update Product Seminar (DUPS) we, via the US
    Software Specialist, trained over 5000 Business Partners, world-wide,
    including Digital Sales and Sales Support on our MailWorks and Messaging
    Products.  I thought we had a good message especially when you talked
    about scaleability.  The last slide in their presentation told it all:
    
    	Digital's Track Record
    
    o Over 15 years Experience in the Messaging Business
     - over 7,000,000 Mailboxes installed
     - 20,000 LAN Mail servers installed in over 50 countries
     - over 3,000 major corporations using Digital's "Messaging Backbone"
       products
     - Over 400 Major EDI implementations for "Bet your Business"
       Electronic Commerce
     - Complete solutions from Desktop to Trading Partners including SI and
       implementation
    o The Most Demanding Accounts Choose Digital
     - PTT's from around the world
     - Government Agencies
     - Accounts who want "mission critical" messaging
    
    I guess we should have invited the decision makers to this round of
    Business Partners Training.  Once again, we and the Software Specialist
    have to go back out into the field, with egg on our face, and tap-dance
    around these issues.
    
    I was wonder why when it comes to our Strategy on Software the Business
    Partner's always seemed to pick up their materials and leave.  I guess
    they recognized that we don't have one and are not consistent.

    
    RE:.39
    
    >I believe this note reflects one of the biggest problems with our
    >own messaging products.  Here we have a set a products that does all
    >the
    >above mentioned things, yet internally we don't even know it or use it.
    >Our messaging products seem to be one of our best kept secrets.  Yet,
    >despite ourselves we have managed to sell them into a fairly large
    >customer base.
    
    All my note reflects is some features of MS-Exchange period. Please
    count how many products you have listed in your reply  Vs just few 
    features of one product.   
    
>    That's the power of Microsoft marketing...I guess they can make
>    it seem like they invented all of this stuff.
    
    No one disputes Digital's ability to produce world class products. We
    have done it in the past and we are doing it even now. Microsoft is
    good at doing lot of things, we are good at doing lot of things
    ourself. This note is not for discussing this issue. So back to
    MS-Exchange Vs All-In-1,e-mail,teamlinks etc. etc. 
    
       

>    
>    Is there anyone reading this who (a) remembers Livelinks (as in CDA, as
>    used in DECwrite/DECdecision/etc) (b) knows what MS OLE is (c) can
>    explain what the difference is (other than MS marketing) ?
>    
OLE works better?  OLE is integral to Microsoft's operating environments?  OLE
supports in-place editing?  Microsoft didn't abandon it after having tried to
use it in a set of mediocre products (remember DECDecision?)

BobW

John:

> Is there anyone reading this who (a) remembers Livelinks (as in CDA, as
> used in DECwrite/DECdecision/etc) (b) knows what MS OLE is (c) can
> explain what the difference is (other than MS marketing) ?

  I *THINK* that...

  While "LiveLInks" was basically a file-oriented technology, OLE
  is basically an application-oriented technology.

  What I mean by that is that with "LiveLInks", "DECwrite" knew how
  to read the linked-to data files and could incorporate their data
  into its documents. "DECwrite" did all the work.

  Modern OLE (I forget the exact buzzword), on the other hand, actually
  activates the application that owns the linked-to data files and asks
  *THAT* application to fetch the data. The data is then conveyed to the
  application that's processing the document that contains the link.

  OLE could be much more flexible as compared to "DECwrite". With the
  "DECwrite" approach, "DECwrite" needed to understand the file formats
  of all the applications whose data it could link to. This is *VERY*
  limiting. With the OLE approach, the linking application need only
  know how to say "Application FOO: Get me the data!" and the data is
  gotten. Any application that can respond to this sort of generic
  request could be linked to with no changes to the application asking
  for the link.

  The linked-to application could even be an appropriately-written
  "Visual Basic" application written by the customer; try that with
  "DECwrite"!

  And then there's Open Doc...

                                   Atlant

    I hope your memo to "me" states that I have won the Swedish lottery!

re. .47

>  I *THINK* that...
>
>  While "LiveLInks" was basically a file-oriented technology, OLE
>  is basically an application-oriented technology.

No, Application Invocation Library (AIL) style links were application
links ala OLE. AIL was the name of the library that
DECwrite/DECdecision/DECpresnet/DEChart and friends used to implement
live links. 

>  What I mean by that is that with "LiveLInks", "DECwrite" knew how
>  to read the linked-to data files and could incorporate their data
>  into its documents. "DECwrite" did all the work.
DECwrite initiated the work, yes. 

>  Modern OLE (I forget the exact buzzword), on the other hand, actually
>  activates the application that owns the linked-to data files and asks
>  *THAT* application to fetch the data. The data is then conveyed to the
>  application that's processing the document that contains the link.

DECwrite kept the application and file that was part of the live link and it
would compare the date of the external file to a date saved in the document to
determine if the data in the document needed to be updated. If so  it
AIL-invoked the application, passing it the filename, and the application would
generate the data (in a tmp file - yuch!) and DECwrite would read it and update
the document

>  OLE could be much more flexible as compared to "DECwrite". With the
>  "DECwrite" approach, "DECwrite" needed to understand the file formats
>  of all the applications whose data it could link to. This is *VERY*
>  limiting. 
No. The data had to be DDIF. All CDA apps used this as thier common 
file format so there was no application specific file formats to understand. 
That's the theory anyway ;-) In actual practive this was a great
weakness of CDA since the same thing could be expressed in so many
different ways that it was hard to achieve interoperability.  

>  With the OLE approach, the linking application need only
>  know how to say "Application FOO: Get me the data!" and the data is
>  gotten. Any application that can respond to this sort of generic
>  request could be linked to with no changes to the application asking
>  for the link.
Clearly the invoking app needs to be understand the data from the
invokee (at a certain level). Under OLE, the invokee generates
windows metafile format data which is then displayed by the invoker. 
Where OLE wins hands down:
	- it's not part of retired set of products :-)
	- it went on to support embedding in addition to linking
	  (AIL stuff was just linking). 
	- it went on to support in-place editing, etc. etc. etc. 


>  The linked-to application could even be an appropriately-written
>  "Visual Basic" application written by the customer; try that with
>  "DECwrite"!
AIL was a library that was available to customers that wanted to 
intergrate into this architecture. It was never made generally 
available though. 

			Pete, ex-DECwriter


 

re Note 4532.43 by BBPBV1::WALLACE:

>     Is there anyone reading this who (a) remembers Livelinks (as in CDA, as
>     used in DECwrite/DECdecision/etc) (b) knows what MS OLE is (c) can
>     explain what the difference is (other than MS marketing) ?
  
        Perhaps the most important difference between these and other
        pioneering approaches and Microsoft's is that Microsoft has
        implemented these things on a platform whose installations
        number in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions.

        Bob

RE: .42

Thanks Signe for that good response!  That was a good summary of
Digital's failure to use its own messaging products internally.

Some of the excuses for not using TeamLinks have been so lame.  I've
been hearing them for more than 5 years now.  Some do not want to
use ALL-IN-1 or MailWorks servers.  Like as if they actually have
to use ALL-IN-1.  It's the servers that TeamLinks uses, not the
character cell interfaces.  But those interfaces do come in handy
from time to time.  I would like to see MS Exchange offer the types
of clients the that Digital messaging products offer.  They couldn't
do it.  They even limit you to only one server platform -- their
Windows NT server.

Others complain that they might have to actually update how they
use VMSmail distribution lists.  Give me a break.

Others complain that in order to use the Digital servers they have
to use something that's "so hard to use" -- namely Message Router or
MAILbus 400.  What do they think their system managers are their for?
There are groups in Digital that are supposed to help out with that
stuff anyway.  They say "we want Exchange", but they fail to realize
that the product that makes Exchange work within the Digital environment
is MAILbus 400 and X.500.

The comments that Helen answered are very typical.  Lots of users in
Digital show just how little they know about messaging products and
exactly what Digital has to offer.  The argument that MS can do it
in just one product is obsurd.  They do not understand that some of
the features of Exchange are delivered as third party add-ons.
Digital's TeamRoute is built into TeamLinks.  So what if the TeamRoute
server is an add-on to MailWorks or ALL-IN-1?  It's comments like these
that makes Digital look like they are so behind the times.

I've had many a visitor to my office and they see TeamLinks.  After
a brief description of what it can do, they all want to us it.  But
they usually run into a problem in their group.  Their system manager
doesn't want to install a server or something.  So they have to keep
using VMSmail.  There are lots of people in DEC that want to use
our products, but they are prevented from doing so by politics, their
managment, their system managers, etc...

The issue, as this base topic introduces, *is* all about Digital's use
of its own messaging products internally.  Non-use would be more
appropriate.

Some might think that the TeamLinks group is just all worried about
Exchange...  Well we have been planning for Exchange for a long time,
long before the MS/DEC alliance.  We know that we are going to be 
living in the real world with Exchange.  We are planning for TeamLinks
to be a client to the Exchange server.  We aren't stupid.  Exchange
will be a force to be dealt with and it will also make a lot of money
for Digital.  But what we are very worried about is the message that 
our company is sending to our customers and potential customers.  IMHO
no group at Digital should be forced to use any messaging product.  If
a group can justify deploying Lotus Notes, then no problem.  If a group
needs to use Exchange, because they need the expertise as is the
case with MCS, then no problem.  Every other group should be using
Digital's products if they cannot directly justify the use of a
competitor's product.

A dose of clear thinking and reality might help Digital here.

Sorry for the long posting.  :-)

Bob
  

Does this mean that broadcast messages from the corporation's overhead groups
will no longer have a 100-line distribution list at the end?
				/AHM

Wait, our E-mail strategy is not completely gone. We still have
readers choice! 

>Per

I am a lucky user of ALL-IN-1. I also have a PC with Teamlinks loaded as
supplied by my local I.S. The functionality is fine but it runs like a slug.
It's just too slow to be useable - so while someone works that issue I carry on 
using my trusty self-managed VAXstation. If the implementation of Exchange 
solves this problem then I'm all for it.

Dave. 

    for the last four months I've been using teamlinks, I've been cussing
    and swearing (in my home office) at vaporized documents, corrupted file
    cabinets, 30sec response to keystrokes, dropped links, blow away
    windows and xxx.grp, etc. Teamlink has been connected to all of these
    errors. I was beginning to realize that my system management overhead
    had tripled since dropping my old 386 with keaterm. 
    
    (which, btw, is what is constructing this reply)
    
    Now, I'm not so sure where the fault lies. Could it be that miniture
    hunk of iron call a hi-note ultra? could it be the egg frying
    capability of the 28.88 credit pcmcia modem? This is not a robust,
    production grade piece of gear. It's a casual use toy.
    
    My (this) desktop ran (is running) for three years and never, ever,
    ever froze windows or bombed software. Teamlinks/hi-note ultra does it
    4-5 times DAILY. This 14.4modem (an ISA card) never, ever drops a
    link. The Courier can't hold one more than 8-10min.
    
    To give teamlinks a fair chance, I'll like to install it on a "real"
    system powered by a SCSI-RZ26 (like this one) system and see if it can
    really fly. 
    
    One thing, the teamlink folk really need to add: An "off" button like
    netscape uses, when the network link goes down. To let teamlink hog the
    entire CPU for ever (reboot time!!!) is not very sophisticated.
    
    

Re -.1

I've been using a HNU with teamlinks and the reast of SWB for ~1year.

I HAVE had some problems, but I have to say, NOT with Teamlinks. I'm not 
equipped to comment on TL vs competitive C/S mail apps, and I don't use TL as 
my default desktop, but used correctly, it works fine.

I suspect you are using TL with your "file cabinet connected"...that should 
only be done if you want to nove files up/down from the A1 and TL cabs.  
Otherwise, do "Visit Post Office", and it automatically sends/retrieves 
messages.

If you want to waste connect time, you'll waste it much more efficiently 
using KEAterm or equivelant.

SteveS

    re .56
    
    The PCMCIA USR 28.8 modems have a known problem ... at least our folks
    have managed to convince USR about it.  They overheat, links get
    dropped after only a few minutes.  They're great for toasting your
    palms as you use the notebook.  This is not a TeamLiks problem.  I
    use TL on SWB/W95/HiNote Ultra combo and except for the modem have
    found it to be a useable package.

Hello,

RE: the last few

Yes, we too wish that TeamLinks was faster in both how quick its
windows display and how fast it can move data.  Some of these problems
are because quite a bit of the UI is written in Visual Basic.  We don't
have the resources to rewrite it all in C or C++, we can only redo
parts of it in each release.  The other problems with data transfer
involve both TL and the various servers that it communicates with.  The
changes would be complex and would impact other clients -- clients that
we don't have the resources at this point to re-engineer and re-release.

I use TL quite heavily and I've never lost a file cabinet.  But it has
been known to happen from time to time and now we have a much improved
utility to verify and repair them.  We can even recover a completely
ruined drawer.

Dialup connections can suffer all kinds of problems, not just with TL.
TL has made some good improvments in this area.  What I have found is 
that if you have access to SLIP or PPP, with at least a 14,000 modem, 
you can use the MS Dialup Networking in Windows 95.  It's options are 
not as robust as TLREMOTE, but it works quite well.  I use it all the
time.  I'm entering this note with TeamLinks Conferencing (a Windows 
DEC Notes client), via PPP.

I too have encountered many strange problems with my HiNote Ultra.
There is something wrong there and I hope Digital fixes it soon.

You have to remember that Exchange has some performance problems of
its own.  It takes quite a long time to start it.  No app is perfect.
Each has its own merits.

The problem with TL is that we have such demand for new features from
big customers that it seems that's all we can do.  Taking time to
make the app faster, or updating the UI, or having that Cancel button
on network operations all seem to take a back seat.  We have demand
for other major features and we just don't know how we're going to 
do them.  It's hard for us to figure out what we should focus on, given
that the corporation is more interested in selling Exchange.  We have
groups asking for major features, but not really comitting to push
TeamLinks over Exchange.  We wonder if we will ever get to build the
new 32-bit version of TeamLinks.  There is always a cloud over us,
and our related servers, because of Digital's continued lack of a
clear messaging strategy and its shaky committment to any Digital
produced software.

This message about having just about everyone at Digital using 
Exchange is further complicating things for all of our messaging
products.  I wouldn't want to be an account rep explaining this 
to a customer!  I've explained lots of other dubious things that
Digital does to customers, but not this one! ;-)

Digital has sold a lot of TL clients.  More than you might expect.
And the potential is there to sell many times more.  I wish management
would focus on selling to this base instead of giving it away.  The
stakes are too high when dealing with the messaging customer base.  When
we lose this base, our future prospects are not good.  I hear that we
are not even allowed to sell ALL-IN-1 into new customers without high
level approval.  So we cannot grow.  What are we doing?!?

To those within Digital that have used TeamLinks and promoted it,
we thank you!  The testing that you have done and the suggestions that
you've made have helped us to build a better product.  I think you'll
agree that the TL engineering group is very responsive.

Bob

    To make Bob in .-1 feel better, I have used Teamlinks as a front end to
    ALL-IN-1 for longer than I can remember.  It has never lost me a
    document, it has an attractive interface, and, the way it is configured
    for me, it is reasonably fast.  I now have 90% of my correspondence
    with me at all times, i.e. on my HiNote.  Before Teamlinks, I could
    never keep up with my mail.  With Teamlinks, I can keep up most of the
    time.  Mail is all about reading, replying and filing, not just
    reading.  And Teamlinks does it well, whether in the office or out of
    the office. Ken

If Teamlinks only performs well "offline" then I have been supplied with 
the wrong tool. My ALL-IN-1 file cabinet is in constant use for creating 
new documents from old and searching for information I have previously 
stored. Unless the entire file cabinet is moved to the PC then I have to be 
on-line most of the time. At the moment I have fallen back to using telnet
from a DECterm session on my VAX workstation. This is generally very fast.

Can anyone tell me if this Exchange system will fair any better? I'd also 
like to know what happens to my file cabinet (with hundreds of man hours 
invested) when I go to Exchange.

Thanks,
Dave.

    Dave,
    
    Your performance problems (and the rest of the South UK's) probably
    result from UK IS's interesting mainframe-style end user computing
    "strategy", and the fact that the hardware in the south uk is totally
    undersized for the number of people and applications that are using it.
    It's not just Teamlinks. Ask almost anyone who's been forced to use
    any application on CHEFS. 
    
    Meanwhile: does Exchange have a VT client ("legacy desktop") or are
    those without PCs going to have to queue up at the communal shared PC
    to do mail ? (Maybe we should bring back card punches and readers;
    "Hey, the PC queue's too big so I'll just card punch this Excel
    spreadsheet, so it'll get run overnight".)
    
    regards
    john
    ps
    hint: ask a NorthUK-based person if _they're_ happy with Teamlinks
    performance. you may get a pleasant surprise... but DON'T TELL ANYONE.

I work from my home, use TeamLinks with Windows 95 dial-up networking
every day, all day. I stay dialed in and actually have better network
performance than when I am in the office. I know that this sounds 
crazy, but my system on the network in the office is quite unpredictable.
It makes fast connects to systems in the building and very slow connects
to systems in New Hampshire. My home system, which goes in through dial-up
to the same site connects much faster to the remote systems.


I also must access my multiple ALL-IN-1 file cabinets at all times and
have no problems doing so. Many of the users of the sales workbench are 
using an outdated field test copy of TeamLinks with Trumpet Winsock.

I recommend to anyone using TeamLinks remotely, that if you want to stay
connected, go to Win 95 and use dial-up networking with PPP. If the line
goes down (which it can do with great regularity on some days), it notifies
you to reconnect.

As to what will happen to the many thousands of documents currently stored
in the ALL-IN-1 file cabinet when they take ALL-IN-1 away - why not ask 
Mr. Fishburn and see if he has an answer. Many Digital employees, like our
long-term ALL-IN-1 customers, have a great deal of their business invested
in documents stored in the ALL-IN-1 repository. TeamLinks is an amazingly
convenient interface to those documents and will even enable moving them
easily to another repository such as the Exchange folders. However, I don't 
know whether anyone has actually ever attempted to replicate the kind of
accounts some of us have in Microsoft Exchange. I'm talking greater than
10,000 documents for an individual user - documents, not little mail messages -
things like plans, spreadsheets, presentations, etc.  If anyone has done this
type of testing on Exchange, I'd love to hear from you. I don't have the luxury
of the time myself these days - too busy trying to keep our customers buying
anything from Digital.

Signe

RE: Bob St Jean and Exchange slow startup

	This is frequently not an Exchange problem but one of network
	bindings. A default Win95 install with IP added probably
	has the bindings in the following order:

	netbeui--IPX--TCP/IP

	If the Exchange Server is on IP only, then Exchange will go down
	the list of network protocols, timing out on each one, until it
	comes to one that will connect. This can take quite some time.
	When this is fixed, Exchange comes up quite quickly.

							mike
				(our group is doing voicemail on Exchange)

    A curious mind asking in all objectivity:
    
    Has anyone done a financial study on how much it would cost to get all
    the employees running with Exchange ?
    I mean a complete assesment, like how much it costs to configure and
    maintain a network of thousands of NT systems and domains. How much
    does it cost to upgrade everyone to have a PC...
    
    And if it has been done, was it compared to a solution based on
    Internet technology (Did someone say Intranet :), something like mail
    systems running on Unix/NT/VMS based on POP3/IMAP/IMSP ?
    
    After all, it's not everyday that a Company decides to change
    completely and drastically its mail system.
    
    Thanks in advance, Thierry.

    Re: .65        
    
    
    You must be kidding! But of *COURSE* we did. I'm sure of it. No, let
    me say, I'm absolutely sure of it. 
    
    We must have. 
    
    Right? 
    
    Isn't it so? 
    
    Please say it is so.
    
    It must be so; major corporate strategies - such as a multinational, 
    multi-billion-dollar, Fortune 500 (1000? ;-) company's electronic mail 
    infrastructure direction - aren't decided in a vacuum, without hard 
    facts. 
    
    A careful cost/benfit analysis is done.
    
    Or is it?
    
    ???
    
    ...
    
    Wait a minute!!! 
    
    Now I know... 
    
    This must be it: The Microsoft-marketing-weight factor is significant 
    enough to offset any cost difference in competing solutions.
    
    Or the real story could be: "Let's do it; Exchange is IT! The cost-centers
    will pay, somehow. Maybe."
    
    
    Seriously. I wonder about this myself, and - besides - knowing more
    about what lead us to this could help very much in large projects
    where customers are pondering what they should do for their e-mail
    infrastructure.
    
    
    ...petri

    ...Exchange is a mature product; it is already at version 4.0 and
    the currently shipping release has had an extensive beta-testing 
    period of serveral years.
    
    ...petri ;-)

    Re .66
    
    I don't know - it might be OK to let Wall Street know how decisions are
    made around here - but do we really want our customer's network 
    managers to know that we arrived at our mail strategy by pointing west,
    and saying - it's over there somewhere.

    Its going to help this company greatly to have all the employees
    running on the same client/server based mail program.
    
    Yes Teamlinks has its plueses but only about 15% of the company
    migrated to this product and I can't tell you how many times I've had
    the question from someone or seen a problem due to mail going from
    A1 to vaxmail or Vaxmail to Decmailworks or ....(you get the picture).
    
    Exchange will help everyone share PC data and not character cell
    mainframe data.  Its about time we use the PC's like our customers do!
    
    Larry

    
    
    >>    Its going to help this company greatly to have all the employees
    >>    running on the same client/server based mail program.
    
    I might have said, "It may help this company".
     ""              , "It'll be easier to merge this company with
                        MicroSoft when we get bought."
    
    I speculate that it would be far cheaper to have a stated goal and vision.
    
    But, since I have been known to be wrong, I will ask for your proof.  
    
    Respectfully,
    jc
    

    None of the systems in my office will run Exchange.  What am I supposed
    to do?
    
    					Steve

        Re .71:

    Steve,
      That's negative thinking.  Make it happen. :-)


    Jim Morton

    re: .69
    
    I've resisted as long as I can...
    
    Larry, your 15% figure may be exactly correct, but do you understand
    why only 15%?  Because the various groups within Digital Equipment
    Corporation can not afford, nor do they really need the power of a
    thumping, pounding high-end 486 or Pentium-based system with 16+mb of
    RAM and a 1.2gb hard drive to get their basic job duties accomplished.
    
    I just happen to sell Digital software (including messaging) products 
    and I haven't found a customer in my three state geography who's 
    committed the funding to migrate X hundreds of VT-based end users to 
    ANY intelligent desktop.  That's not to say that there aren't a few who
    wouldn't like to or who are new enough to enjoy the luxury of having
    started business in the last three years, most simply can not justify
    the expenditure.
    
    So where do you think Digital Equipment Corporation is going to come up
    with the funding to provide every one of those 50,000 employees Mr.
    Palmer mentioned last week with a powerful enough desktop to drive
    Windows 95/Windows NT and the vast array of $200+ each desktop apps you
    say are necessary to move us out of the dark ages?  
    
    As a stockholder I would consider that a very risky investment.  I
    believe others might as well.
    
    THANKS!!
    
    Rick (who's wasted most of the last two days answering the questions of
    concerned customers and business partners!)
    
    PS:  My sales job demands that I use a company provided HiNote Ultra
    which is now equipped with Windows 95, TeamLinks V2.7 EFT2, and the
    Microsoft Office 95 suite (which I use every day!).  There is simple
    satisfaction each time I show a customer a REAL integrated e-mail
    environment which can attach to whichever (OpenVMS (VAX & Alpha BTW),
    Digital Unix, POP-3 (boy that makes heads spin - and don't give me the
    business about not doing IMAP-4 - it just doesn't wash!), and yes even 
    to the Exchange server (which isn't even a product as of this writing!)) 
    server an organization might have or want to select.  I've even sold
    TeamLinks to a customer who needed to convert their beautiful Word for
    Windows company newsletter to EBCDIC because company management
    required e-mail distribution of that newsletter.  Some of those old (5
    years +) legacy IBM mail systems just can't handle todays binary
    documents!  Try that on your Exchange client! 
    
    Funny what turns up when you start requiring folks to make 
    a change from what they've been using (and very comfortably so, I might 
    add) for the past 1-15 years.  Same holds true for those within Digital 
    who refuse to give up on VMSmail.  You've never seen a happier customer 
    than the one who buys into the TeamLinks desktop and needs to get legacy 
    VMSmail into a REAL server environment.  That's accomplished with a 
    one-line command in MailWorks (a Digital Equipment Corporation e-mail
    server product for both OpenVMS (VAX & Alpha) and Digital UNIX).  
    
    Ah, but I ramble...

    Re : .73
    
    >So where do you think Digital Equipment Corporation is going to come up
    >with the funding to provide every one of those 50,000 employees Mr.
    >Palmer mentioned last week with a powerful enough desktop to drive
    >Windows 95/Windows NT and the vast array of $200+ each desktop apps you
    >say are necessary to move us out of the dark ages?  
    
    Rick,
      The obvious answer is to lay off about 4k more people.  That should
    about cover the cost of the hardware.  A few k more layoffs and that
    should pay for the software and training.
      See!  Even I can figure this one out.  :-)
    
    
    Jim Morton

    This is *great* news! Currently a group of us have access to a PC; we
    share it. It's a DEC 386SX-25. Now, we'll all have a high end 486 or a
    Pentium *each*! I can replace the cranky old hand-me-down B&W 8meg
    VXT2000 I use. Yeah!
    
    Laurie.

>     <<< Note 4532.71 by QUARK::LIONEL "Free advice is worth every cent" >>>
>
>    None of the systems in my office will run Exchange.  What am I supposed
>    to do?
>    
    Exchange them, obviously.

Hmm - then I can't run or develop any of the products I work on.  I see
a dilemma here....

				Steve

    May be that's the problem? :-)

    
     As I told someone just the other day.
    
     We have been in damage control on our mail products since...........
    forever.
    
     I have this hope that one day, digital will realize what abilities
    it has in the mail market place. It is more than just hardware sales.
    It is people, general skill sets and specific skill sets, software,
    desktop to the enterprise, networks, nic cards to satellite systems,
    PC hardware, fortessa cards to multi-media kits. It can be someones
    sole business application... and it better work every time, all the
    time.
    
     Can other mail products do this.... yes and no to varying degrees.
    Mail can be a choice or an edict. We as a corporation have the products
    to span it all and connect it all.
    
    How about a little respect... just a little. Just a tiny bit.
    
    -Mike Z.

    It is very frustrating to try and exchange mail within our corporation
    today. VMSmail,Teamlinks,ALL-IN-1,...what ever. We need to move to
    one standard. And if Exchange is it, then I'm all for it. If we were
    able to market Teamlinks better to get wider acceptance (both
    externally and internally) then we wouldn't be having this discussion
    now because we would all be using Teamlinks. But we aren't and the market
    is passing us by. I would like to see one mail standard. And since
    most of our customers are moving to Exchange and we will be selling 
    hardware and consulting services to support those customers, we may as 
    well use the same standard that they are.
    
    No offense intended to the hard working Teamlinks engineers and support
    staff, but Teamlinks is the BETA of mail systems when everyone is
    buying VHS. Teamlinks may be better, but the standard will be Exchange.
    
    Les

    > Its about time we use the PC's like our customers do!
    
    To which I would reply:
    
    It's about time we use the Internet like our customers do :)
    
    That's why I was asking about the comparative analysis.
    If we are going to make money selling Exchange we better be prepared to
    tell our customers why it's cheaper per seat than an Internet based
    solution a la POP3/IMAP. Particularly when you go with an NT only solution
    locked into a specific vendor.
    
    I may have said that already in this note thread, but I can clearly see
    the moment coming when Sun (HP) will announce the fastest Mail system in the
    world (running on their 64 bit OS) based on Internet standart. Could we
    be missing a big opportunity here ?
    
    Thierry

    This is an "unfunded mandate".  If the US Government is now unable to
    issue an unfunded mandate for each state, then inside Digital each
    cost center should refuse to implement our unfunded mandates.
    
                                    -John

    
    I'm sure the reason why TeamLinks isn't as widely deployed is the 
    fact that Office packages like it need a good PC to run on and Digital
    just does not have that.  Exchange WILL have the same problem.
    
    So what is Bob Palmer going to do buy 40,000 66mhz 486 at least!
    Hey, that'd help the PCBU ;-)
    
    Exchange has no character cell interface.
    
    I guess Digital is trying to do what other customers seem to be doing,
    rushing into using Exchange.  Digital wants to make the mistake itself
    first so that it make money fixing the customers problems, when really
    it should be taking a must more patient approach.
    
    Mike

    Thanks to this string of notes, it's all coming into view...
    
    1.	Get funds for The Great Mail Switch by dehiring a bunch of people. 
    	Result: more funds AND fewer people to buy software for.
    
    2.	Convert to a system a lot of 'em can't run.
    	Result (a): fewer systems you actually have to buy software for.
    	Result (b): the rest are spending more brain-time on the
    	    corporate exercise wheel because they aren't bothered
    	    any more by all that mail.  (Besides, all that information
    	    was just confusing 'em, the little darlings.)
    
    Now, that's good MBA-think, isn't it?
    
    Reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon sequence I just read in "Still Pumped
    from Using the Mouse".  D. was sent to Elbonia to teach them TQM.  When
    he was done, they celebrated: defects were down 50 per cent.  Then
    somebody asked about productivity.  Yup, that was down 50 per cent,
    too!
    
    Somehow, it's always funnier when it happens to Dilbert.
    
    -Mark

    Doesn't this company still have loads of Alpha Multias?  (or
    Internet Servers, or Universal Desktop, or whatever they're trying
    to call them these days to get them to sell).  Not real fast, but a
    nice small desktop footprint and they can tackle most everything
    folks in this company want to run (VMS, NT + Exchange + Office, Unix,
    Linux, Xserver).
    
    Back up the truck (beep, beep, beep...)
    Kratz

    Re: .80
    
    >                                                         And since
    >most of our customers are moving to Exchange
    
    I don't think so. Many might, but I don't believe most are. Time will
    tell what really happens.
    
    ...petri

    At today's UNIX TruCluster announcment Larry Ellison of Oracle noted
    that they would be running major company systems on them including one
    TruCluster for e-mail, another for other company systems. The
    impression I took away was that this was just a upgrade and
    consolidation of existing systems. Anyone know what mail system Oracle
    uses? 

    - Bob

    Re .85 - fact corrections
    
    1) Multias don't run VMS (not even the Alpha ones). Not even worth trying.
    NT and Linux are official, and Digital Unix works unofficially.
    
    2) Sadly, Multias for internal use WILL NOT HAPPEN for the same
    farcical business reasons that stopped widespread deployment of
    obsolete workstations years ago. The book-keepers will not allow
    "saleable" stock to be used internally; they'd rather sell it to
    brokers for cash, or crush it (that way they don't depress "the market"
    with cheap stock). I'd *love* an Alpha Multia, to help me do my job.
    The management tell me it cannot and will not be done. Stupid, or what?
    
    now returning you to mailclients and servers discussion
    john

    Oracle uses "Oracle Mail".  I'm not sure what's underneath it, but it's
    a corporate-wide system - all the ex-DEC Rdb folks have to use it to
    talk to anybody outside of Rdb-land.

re: .89:
.89: -< factcheck for .85 >-
.89: Re .85 - fact corrections
.89: 1) Multias don't run VMS (not even the Alpha ones). Not even worth trying.

   See VAXAXP::VMSNOTES 628.*.

>      <<< Note 4532.90 by XDELTA::HOFFMAN "Steve, OpenVMS Engineering" >>>
>         -< Contact OpenVMS Product Management With (Qualified) Leads >-
>
>
>re: .89:
>.89: -< factcheck for .85 >-
>.89: Re .85 - fact corrections
>.89: 1) Multias don't run VMS (not even the Alpha ones). Not even worth trying.
>
>   See VAXAXP::VMSNOTES 628.*.

400 units in Florida...Answer...no go.

AC

Ok, Ok, enough already!

I too am a user of TeamLinks, on a fairly recent vintage pc (HNU-CS450)
using a "chopped & channeled" version of the Sales WorkBench (Win'95 variant).

After 4 years with a1, and 11 years total with centralized mail products, my 
comments on TeamLinks are as follows:

- It is a good product overall, and a net improvement over A1 via a VT
  emulator.

- It has helped me greatly as a mobile employee regain (some) control over my
  file cabinet.

- It is lacking in speed (VB base has been cited), and some polish (interface
  can be awkward as well as non-"Windows" like in spots), but it WORKS.

- My biggest gripe is on the overall lack of integration on the directory,
  and between ELF, TeamLinks, A1 and ACT!.  For a product that is intended for
  Sales use, not having some sort of integrated directory capability for
  accessing internal info as well as managing contacts is a serious 
  drawback.  I understand that there are some linkages there, and I do 
  use them, but it is not seamless, and those not as familiar with PC's
  and mail systems are probably just suffering along.  BUT THIS IS PART
  OF THE BIGGER CORPORATE DIRECTORY DISCUSSION, so I won't belabor the point.

- Using the character-cell A1 interface can be more efficient, if you know the
  commands, BUT THIS FALLS UNDER THE GUI-VERSUS-COMMAND INTERFACE DISCUSSION,
  and is not really a TeamLinks issue.

- It and the SWB have FINALLY given me a workable pc environment almost as
  integrated as the one I helped build for a Fortune 100 employer in the
  late 80's (problem here is Windows; late 80's interface was DOS based, and
  therefore gave us more control over the design than MS - the SWB builders 
  had to limit customization, so integration suffers).

NONE of this matters.  Why not?  Because TeamLinks the PRODUCT (not the 
application) appears to be getting the DECwrite treatment.  I believe we 
should examine the issues, as well as our and MS' recent history, and then
use this evaluation to predict the fate of TeamLinks:

Issue - Can we Make Money on Teamlinks?
--------------------------------------
Most customers invested in PC's in a major way are MS users, at the     
interface and the personal application level.  Microsoft has clearly
shown great willingness to give away "free"/bundle any product that
they don't already control the market for, so long as a customer is using
their core set of products (examples: Internet Explorer vs. Netscape, MS     
Money vs. Quicken, the Internet Server vs. whatever, Schedule+ vs. Lotus
Organizer, MS Exchange Client vs. whatever, Fax S/W vs. WinFax, WIN TCP/IP
stack vs. Pathworks/FTP/Novell/etc.; get the idea?).  So how can *anyone* 
expect TeamLinks to make money, or even be used, given this position by MS? 
(REMEMBER - EVEN HP FAILED TO GET NEW WAVE INTO THE TOP 10, and HOW MANY $$$B 
HAS IBM SPENT ON OS/2?)

Issue - Have we been Successful at the Client?
----------------------------------------------
Please name at least one PC Windows S/W application that Digital sells that is 
number 1 or 2 in its market.  Yes, we have been very successful with A1 
through the years, but this does not mean we should expect this to lead to 
dominance on the desktop in the mail client area.  Rather, I believe we will 
have continued success in the part that we do best - making the overall mail 
environment work well (i.e., I really don't care if I use TeamLinks or 
Exchange as a client; my concern is if the enterprise mail architecture is 
going to work - directory, distribution, external interfaces, fault-tolerance, 
timely delivery, and etc.).  And let's face facts - will selling TeamLinks 
lead to larger AlphaServer revenues in the long run?  OR WILL IT BE SELLING A 
BACK-END SYSTEM ENVIRONMENT TO WORK WITH TEAMLINKS/EXCHANGE/A1 or WHATEVER 
THAT WILL BOOST ALPHA SALES? 

Issue - We Will Not Compete With Our Partners (Bob Palmer, some time ago)
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Microsoft is trying REAL HARD to move up from the client, and we 
are their number one partner in that effort (at present).  I would expect
that Microsoft would have some difficulty explaining to other big customers
why its major technolgy partner - That's US, right? -  snubbed Exchange in 
favor of some internally developed product.  So I ask you - is TeamLinks 
competition for Exchange Client?

Issue - We Need to Use What Our Customers Use
---------------------------------------------
Mentioned several times in -.*,and I fully agree.  HOW CAN WE KNOW HOW TO 
SUPPORT FULL ENTERPRISE EMAIL BASED ON EXCHANGE, when we don't use it?
We use SAP, and having gone through implementation internally gives us 
credibility we could never buy with customers, especially when still 
potential ones.

Issue - Exchange is Part of A Bigger Picture
--------------------------------------------
As I mentioned at the top, there are a lot of issues here.  TeamLinks, as 
good as it is, is not likely to evolve into a key component of the next 
desktop infrastructure, as Exchange is likely to do:
-  Microsoft intends to use Exchange to enable workgroup computing
   in competition with Notes
-  Microsoft will use Exchange as a key part of their Internet interface
-  As Windows becomes more Object-oriented ("Cairo"), and as this object-base
   environment spreads out on the Intra-& Internet, managing all this
   information will become a function of the environment, not a specific
   application (at least in MS' view).

Issue - For all Those That Don't/Won't Have a PC,
Don't You Think The Maker of the StrongARM May
Be Working on Cheaper Technology for Access?
------------------------------------------------
I believe the Multia was the right idea, just too much $$$.  Now if the
rumors are right:
 1. We are partnered with ARM on their efforts to enable workable Apple       
    Newtons and similar PDA's, which
 2. Contain technology that that is similar to the so-called "Network PC" or  
    NC, which
 3. Microsoft is probably targeting with a Window's based alternative.

So no matter how we look at it, it is likely that cheaper presentation layer
devices than PC's (and especially HighNote portables) are in the works. If you 
are Microsoft, and you need to make sure you can cover this off with Exchange 
before SUN or ORACLE or even NETSCAPE can change the ground under you enough 
to cause a real problem, I would expect you would need a H/W partner that has 
a large (20,000-50,000+) internal client base, that has implemented Exchange 
on a corporate level, and needs to retain a mixed base of devices for access 
(from the NC-type "terminals" up to technical workstations).  ;^)

***************
Bottom line is TeamLinks has to go, because it is not core business, nor is it 
likely to become so soon.  It also has to go because we just don't have the 
$$$ right now to push water uphill in Redmond.  And rather than TFSO the S/W 
development team that helped us build the product, I sure hope we are going to 
use them to figure out how to deploy those 20,000+ desktops right!

my 2bits ... Charles

>Issue - We Need to Use What Our Customers Use
>---------------------------------------------
>Mentioned several times in -.*,and I fully agree.  HOW CAN WE KNOW HOW TO 
>SUPPORT FULL ENTERPRISE EMAIL BASED ON EXCHANGE, when we don't use it?
>We use SAP, and having gone through implementation internally gives us 
>credibility we could never buy with customers, especially when still 
>potential ones.

Lot of good points in -.1.  Having been an engineer on MailWorks since
day 1 and now TeamLinks, I, of course find this whole thing very 
frustrating.  The comment above and a few other comments about how
we should standardize because that's what our customers are doing and
how painful it is to exchange mail between the different products are
very interesting.

First, if the company had used its own client/server mail products as 
people seem to want to do with Exchange, we probably would have been a lot
more successful with them.  We would have drawn for our own internal
experiences and probably promoted the products a lot more. 

Secondly, I don't think all customers are going to standardize on
one mail product.  A lot of customers like our mail backbone products
because we can integrate and exchange mail between different mail
products well.   

And as Bob St. Jean said many replies ago, our group is aware that
Exchange is coming on with full force.  Both the client and server
groups have been doing lots of work to prepare for this so that Digital
products can interwork with Exchange.  Although we seem ready to drop
our products in lieu of Exchange today, I don't think customers are quite
ready to do the same.  Yes, the transition may be inevitable, but I 
believe that may take quite a while.

>Bottom line is TeamLinks has to go, because it is not core business, nor is it 
>likely to become so soon.  It also has to go because we just don't have the 
>$$$ right now to push water uphill in Redmond.  And rather than TFSO the S/W 
>development team that helped us build the product, I sure hope we are going to 
>use them to figure out how to deploy those 20,000+ desktops right!

Ouch!..yeah..I hope they don't TFSO us either :-(

....helen

    
         Exchange works for me.  It has some integrated functionality which
    will make things easier for me.  If Teamlinks was not so tied to
    All-in-1/Mailworks, it too would be a workable option.  I actually like
    teamlinks, for the most part.
    
         The decision to go with Exchange over our own mail products was a
    risky one, but it shows a willingness to NOT allow the company to be
    tied to non-leading-edge technology simply because it is ours.  This
    kind of decision requires an immediate follow-up decision to either
    BECOME leading-edge in that area or STOP producing mail products.
    
         Taking this kind of thought to its next logical step is simply to
    decide if we are going to compete in our various markets or close up
    shop.
    
                                        Greg

RE: .94

>>>    1) Multias don't run VMS (not even the Alpha ones).

I have a 233Mhz Alpha Multia in my office that runs OpenVMS quite well!

There needs to be a little more work done in the both the OpenVMS and 
console code for Multia to turn some hacks into production code, but this 
work in not very difficult.  Nobody has yet to convince my management with 
a proper business justification for the work.  So the system sits sadly in 
my drawer, gathering dust.


						Sigh,
						-Paul

    
    But we are pretty much leading edge!
    
    If we aren't the best it is simply because like the rest of Digital
    we were hit with cuts.  
    When Exchange was starting development Digital was making cuts in the 
    ALL-IN-1 development groups.  If we are not leading edge it is not for
    the want of skill nor trying but simply the amount of work we can get
    done with the people we have.
    
    Mike

    We got involved with TeamLinks around 4-5 years ago when we use to have
    a product called Vivace, remember that one.  At that time we trained
    our Business Partners on TeamLinks and they weren't too impressed, nor
    was I.
    However, when we talk TeamLinks now I feel like E.F. Hutton as our
    Partners are now listening with enthused interest - we have their
    attention.  Our product compares pretty favorably with what I see other
    PC user's using.  Recently, I saw a demo and a user actually using it
    and was quite impressed, enough that I have been trying to get this
    going on my PC but I've been stumped because I cannot get a MailBox on
    my OpenVMS VAX system.  With this new announcement I'm sticking with
    OpenVMS Mail.
    I'm pretty discouraged with our whole Software Strategy.  Didn't ex-DEC
    engineers create Lotus Notes?  We'll if we cancel TeamLinks Mail I wish
    you the same opportunity that those developer's had.  Maybe some
    investor will recognize the opportunities TeamLinks - it's a great
    product.
    Can we get some decision makers that actually use the product in their
    day-to-day life before we start axing our products for someone elses. 
    How come the HP's and IBM's of the world can develop and sell these
    types of products and they don't even compare to ours?
    If we don't have a software strategy and think we're going to be
    competitive with Alpha and Windows NT we'll soon be the 10 largest
    computer vendor right behind ALR and Packard Bell.

    But wait the saga continues...
    I have seen an announcement for Altavista Mail.
    Are we already thinking about a future product that goes beyond
    Exchange ?
    does anyone know what it is ?
    
    Thierry

RE: .42

I have had the official corporate mail system both lose messages on 
me and have inexplicable multi-day delays.  The combination of 
VMSmail and NNMAIL has never lost a message for me.

VMSmail is far from dead when VMS dies--both clients and servers for 
it exist on Windows NT.

I'll stick with SMTP and VMSmail, thank you.

--PSW

P.S.:  For those of you who may have seen the nasty diatribe I put 
here earlier, I apologize for flying off the handle.  I thought 
better of it after I'd calmed down and deleted it in favor of this 
much milder comment on the issue.

re .98:

AltaVista Mail does not/will not 'go beyond' Exchange, at least as far
as I can predict.  If anything, it is a simpler, less functional and far
less expensive mail platform than Exchange.  It's Internet-native rather
than being part of the grand Microsoft office automation strategy, and
it takes far less expertise to install and run than Exchange.

If you want email, AltaVista Mail is a fine solution.  If you want
something more like ALL-IN-1, you need Exchange.

You may already have seen the first component of AltaVista Mail: it's
the MAILbus Internet SMTP and POP3 server that's been out in beta for
months and months.  You can pick up a version of this (that doesn't
reflect the AltaVista Mail name change) from:

http://www.digital.com/info/messaging/mbi_intro.htm

Nick

    re: .101 and all the others who use a fancy notes interface...
    
    PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR TEXT WRAPS AT ~78 CHARACTERS SO THOSE OF US WHO
    USE VT TERMINALS CAN READ IT!  YOU'VE ALREADY BEEN POLITELY ASKED ONCE
    IN THIS TOPIC.
    
    Here is what .101 looks like to me:
    
In addition to being a client for MailWorks and ALL-IN-1, TeamLinks V2.7 is an 
independent internet mail client able to work with POP3 servers and supporting
A version that can connect to Exchange servers is in process.

TeamLinks does not have to talk to just one server at a time, it can bridge mul
servers. Therefore, once we have the Exchange capability in, I can connect to m
ALL-IN-1 accounts, my MailWorks server and my Exchange server - all at the same 
time. 

It is indeed a shame that our upper echelons have never bothered to investigate
current our own products actually are. Many of them are operating on very old 
information fed to them by detractors and IS people who have  not kept pace wit
current releases.

If the amount of energy and enthusiasm going into implementing Exchange had eve
gone into implementing our own products within Digital, they would be much more 
successful. Again, it all boils down to the Microsoft Marketing Machine. It mus
nice to be on that team with all that money to spend. Digital does not believe 
funding real marketing, so we must struggle on writing brochurs, training peopl
delivering presentations and doing demos, while Microsoft and Lotus consume the 
minds of the customer base with massive and effective advertising campaigns. 

As someone said earlier in this note (or maybe another note): perception isn't 
only thing - its everything.

    
    Thanks,
    
    Bob

<<< Note 4532.101 by ALFSS2::alf_dial1_port4.alf.dec.com::maximous_s "Working From Home" >>>
                         -< Perception is everything >-

Re: .94

In addition to being a client for MailWorks and ALL-IN-1, TeamLinks V2.7 is
an  independent internet mail client able to work with POP3 servers and
supporting MIME.  A version that can connect to Exchange servers is in
process.

TeamLinks does not have to talk to just one server at a time, it can bridge
multiple  servers. Therefore, once we have the Exchange capability in, I can
connect to my  ALL-IN-1 accounts, my MailWorks server and my Exchange server
- all at the same  time. 

It is indeed a shame that our upper echelons have never bothered to
investigate how  current our own products actually are. Many of them are
operating on very old  information fed to them by detractors and IS people
who have  not kept pace with  current releases.

If the amount of energy and enthusiasm going into implementing Exchange had
ever  gone into implementing our own products within Digital, they would be
much more  successful. Again, it all boils down to the Microsoft Marketing
Machine. It must be  nice to be on that team with all that money to spend.
Digital does not believe in  funding real marketing, so we must struggle on
writing brochurs, training people,  delivering presentations and doing
demos, while Microsoft and Lotus consume the  minds of the customer base
with massive and effective advertising campaigns. 

As someone said earlier in this note (or maybe another note): perception
isn't the  only thing - its everything.

RE: .100

If the rest of AltaVista Mail follows the lead taken by the MAILbus 
SMTP/POP3 server, it will be a fine product.

--PSW (happy MAILbus SMTP/POP3 user)

    Another happy MAILbus SMTP/POP3 user, great job!

    
    I guess we won't need all or most of these when we go to exchange?
  
  DIGITAL INCREASES ITS LEADERSHIP IN ENTERPRISE MESSAGING CONNECTIVITY
  New Enhanced Software Solutions and Worldwide Services Support
  
  
  On April 29, 1996 Digital will announce the immediate availability of 
  an enhanced suite of solutions to ease the transport and management 
  across heterogeneous electronic mail systems.  Including both hardware 
  and software, this new solutions portfolio is cost-effective, offers 
  investment protection, and provides an easy migration path to the 
  newest offerings.
  
  ANNOUNCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS:
  
     Enhanced software solutions, including new versions of:
  
     - 	Digital X.500 Directory Services -- the fastest in the industry
      	with speeds of 10 milliseconds per directory service read, or
      	200 operations per second.  Adds connectivity to ALL-IN-1
      	and Microsoft Exchange directories, as well as interfaces to
      	Netscape, Mosaic, Local Directory Access Protocol, and other
      	directory service providers.
     
     - 	MAILbus 400 Messaging Transfer Agent -- provides connectivity
      	for Microsoft Exchange Server to ALL-IN-1, MailWorks, and
      	heterogeneous mail systems -- as well as access to Mastersoft's
      	Document Converter Library.
    
     - 	MAILbus Monitor System Management -- highlights problems and 
        potential problems before they affect the network.  Monitors 
        messaging systems across WAN and LAN networks from a central 
        point.
    
     -  ALL-IN-1 office server -- users now have access to an ALL-IN-1
        solution capable of running solely on a Digital Alpha-based
        system.  New Web capabilities redefine ALL-IN-1 V3.2 as an
        Intranet and Internet publishing vehicle offering low-cost Web
        publishing without the need for HTML authoring tools.         
    
     - 	A new range of worldwide enterprise messaging services providing 
     	migration, integration, and upgrade capabilities:
  
     - 	Enterprise Messaging Implementation Service -- helps users
      	build a complete, standards-based enterprise messaging solution
    
     - 	ALL-IN-1 Upgrade Services -- assists users in moving to an all
      	Alpha-based messaging solution
    
     - 	Directory Synchronization Service -- provides a true X.500 
      	enterprise-wide electronic directory as the centerpiece of a
      	powerful, multi-vendor mail network
     
     - 'Moving to Microsoft Exchange' -- a new service program for
      	customers who plan to implement Microsoft Exchange Server
      	either within their existing messaging environment, or as a
      	complete enterprise messaging solution
  
  Digital...the industry leader in mail connectivity.
  

    
    Teamlinks currently holds 1.1% Market Share in the client arena per
    industry analysis.
    
    

    
    TeamLinks may hold 1.1% but more importantly does it make a profit?
    In addition having the client means they're keeping their VMS or UNIX
    box which gets us more money.
    
    Our PC's don't hold 5% of the PC market and they don't make a profit
    but are we pulling out of PC's
    
    With the move to Exchange does that mean VMS will soon be dying in the
    company too?  How many system managers want to maintain NT systems for 
    Exchange as well as their current systems?
    
    As an aside I noticed a very very interesting quote for Bob Palmer in
    some magazine (internal mag I think)
    
    He said we would continue to invest in Alpha as long as it gives us a
    lead.  Whilst I understand what he means I think it could be very
    dangerous for Alpha if the press saw this.  It doesn't take too much
    for this to be taken the wrong way. "Palmer may consider dumping Alpha"
    
    Mike

RE: .108

	I suspect most system managers will welcome learning Exchange
	and Windows NT as a way to update their skills in case they
	get canned. Although there is a market out there for VMS
	system managers (as many have "fled" to unix), it can't last
	forever, and Windows NT administration is a natural progression
	of their skillset.

							mike
					former VMS system/cluster manager
					now doing 99.9% Windows NT "stuff"

    re .108 
    Speaking of making wrong message, your "but we are pulling out of PC's"
    ranks right up there.
    Kratz

    
    Can anybody give me info on how to get the "damage control letter" from
    Copperman that addresses this article.  My customer who bought 2000
    teamlinks licenses is asking for it 
    
    Thanks

    ... perhaps
    http://www.digital.com/.i/info/Customer-Update/951001002.txt.html ?
    
    It doesn't show a date on its page, but AltaVista found it on 10 Apr
    96.
    
    You'll find a lot more at (pardon the chop in the middle of the URL,
    you'll have to reconstitute it in your own browsers)
    
    http://altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/query?pg=q&what=web&fmt=&q=%22
    microsoft+exchange%22+TeamLinks
    
    -=( and you'll have to pardon me for not decorating the ends of the URL
        with cutesy ASCII-finials-that-remind-me-of-the-little-paper-gizmos-
        they-put-on-crown-of-lamb-so-you-don't-see-the-actual-BONES. )=-
    
    I figure this crowd can handle a naked URL without losing consciousness.
    
    :-)
    

    Send email and let us know what the response is as I'm having the same
    issue. 
    
    	Regards,
    
    Common Name:   HARRY COPPERMAN
    Search Surname:  COPPERMAN  Search Given Name:  HARRY,  HAROLD,
    HAROLD DENNIS  DTN:  297-7560  Intrnl Mail Addr:  MRO1-3/P1  Location: MRO
    Org Unit:  SBU HEADQUARTERS,  Exec. Admin Marcia Landingham,  DTN 297-7559,
    FAX 297-1050  Position:  Vice President & Gen Mgr - SBU
    

    Heaven forbid an employee try and cross that moat and contact a
    VP directly for information...

> The process for obtaining the subject correspondence will be
> communicated to everyone before the end of this week-- which of course,
> will be so much more effecient and expeditious than everyone sending
> mail directly to Mr. Copperman's account.      

  But not nearly as effective at expressing how everyone feels about
  the change. Or maybe you could just tell your boss to quit posing
  for "Digital Today" and start reading this notesfile.

                                   Atlant

    I like how someone responds when it appears that a VP might be getting 
    too much mail regarding some clarification to our lastest Strategy
    announcements.
    How come we weren't PRO-ACTIVELY notified that something was coming to 
    help us and our customers understand these announcements?
    
    When David Stone was VP of DECdirect I use to get a number of complaints 
    at our quarterly training on how difficult it was to use the number of
    catalogs.  Finally I gathered them up and sent him a mail message, I sent 
    the message at the end of the business day PST.  Within two hours I 
    received a message from Mr Stone indicating that he would pass this on 
    to the individuals responsible for the catalog.  The message appeared to 
    be from him and not someone reading and responding to his mail.  And it 
    had his name/signature at the bottom.  With a week someone did contact
    me via phone to better understand what the issues were - basically TOO
    many catalogs.
    

> I like how someone responds when it appears that a VP might be getting 
> too much mail regarding some clarification to our lastest Strategy
> announcements.

  "Mrs. Kip" is Harry's secretary. The conclusion we can draw is that
  she's trying to fend off the onslaught of "mail to Harry" that *SHE*
  would have to read.

                                   Atlant

    Gee, looks to me like it's easier to send a FAX to Harry than to
    send an Email/MTS.
    
    Mark

    That's because Harry's not sure which Email client he should be using
    this week...

    
    I've seen numbers tossed around such as TeamLinks has x% of the market
    and it's made me curious as to where these numbers come from. Does 
    MicroSoft count mailboxes, such as for every Windows95 kit they've sold
    count as one Exchange mailbox whether it is being used or not?
    
    As far as comparing TeamLinks and Exchange clients they are running
    pretty close in features. TeamLinks has some that Exchange doesn't and
    vice a versa. 
    
    TeamLinks can connect to multiple file cabinets simultaneously 
    (MailWorks and ALL-IN-1 and Exchange when the Mapi piece is done). 
    Exchange has Mapi support.  
    
    I wouldn't say that Exchange is more leading edge than TeamLinks.  
    Exchange has marketing though and of course Microsoft will tell you 
    that it *is* leading edge. However these are the same people that 
    brought you Microsoft mail and said that *it* was leading edge.
    
    
    Angela
    

    re:-1
    
    Maybe that is what Palmer means when he says 50,000 exchange users
    in Digital.  He 'just' means that they'll go to Windows 95.
    
    Mike

    RE: Mailbox client/host counts
    
    Here's some info that might settle any numbers disputes.
    
    - Dave
    
    "Electronic Mail & Message Systems" (April 29, 1996) lists the
    following figures.
    
    "LAN E-MAILBOXES WORLDWIDE - Estimates as of March 31, 1996, in thousands"
    
    Vendor			Mailboxes
    -------------------------------------
    Lotus cc:Mail		10,000
    Microsoft Mail		 9,100
    Novell GroupWise		 6,000
    Lotus Notes			 5,000
    SoftArc FirstClass		 4,600
    On Technology Da Vinci	 2,500
    CE Software QuickMail	 2,100
    Banyan VINES Mail		 1,500
    On Technology Notework	 1,000
    Banyan BeyondMail		   850
    Futurus Team Combo		   800
    LAN Shark Mail III		   750
    StarNine Mail		   700
    Digital TeamLinks Mail	   500   (1.06% of total)
    ICL TeamWare		   500
    Enable Higgins		   400
    Oracle Office		   400
    Reach Software		   200
    Microsoft Exchange Server	    60
    Others			   200
    ----------------------------------
    Total Worldwide LAN		47,260
    
    "HOST E-MAILBOXES WORLDWIDE - Estimates as of March 31, 1996, in
    thousands"
    
    Vendor			Mailboxes
    -------------------------------------
    DEC All-in-1/MailWorks	 7,000   (23.2% of total)
    IBM OfficeVision		 6,000
    Fischer TAO			 4,000
    Verimation Memo		 2,600
    Uniplex Mail		 2,160
    HP OpenMail			 2,000
    HP OpenDesk			 1,500
    Wang VS Office		 1,500
    NBS Systems TOSS		   650
    Data General CEO		   500
    H&W SYSM			   500
    Software AG Connect		   300
    SunSoft SunNet MHS		   300
    ICL OfficePower		   275
    Bull HN OfficeTeam Mail	   250
    Computer Assoc CA-eMail+	   250
    Quadratron CliqMail		   200
    Unisys OFIS Mail		   200
    Wollongong Pathway Access	   200
    H&W Wizard Mail		   125
    Others			   300
    ----------------------------------
    Total Host			30,810
    
    
    
    

If you want a letter from Harry Copperman to your customer, send a 
memo to Harry Copperman at MRO with the name and address of the 
customer. One of the field managers just sent a very long list. 
Perhaps having your area manager canvass your peers for customers
who should receive a letter and then sending a list would be the 
most effective. 

I surmised from a previous note that someone received a memo 
that Copperman's office would be letting you know how to get 
a letter. I have not seen the memo and will continue to tell 
people to contact Copperman's office directly until notified
otherwise.

Signe

Wow, this topic has been active!  A few comments:

- It's good to see that TeamLinks is showing up on the radar scope.
  1.1% is good, considering that Digital does nothing at all to
  market it.  Advertising is everything, and Digital does nothing
  at all to help TeamLinks in that regard.  They're better at hurting
  it!  ;-)

- The 23% market share for ALL-IN-1 & MailWorks (7,000,000 mailboxs)
  shows the huge potential for TeamLinks.  It shows just how big the
  stakes are for Digital.  With this many host mail boxes, TeamLinks
  has the potential to be number 3 or 4 in the LAN based mail list.

- I don't have any problems exchanging mail with users in Digital,
  no matter what type of mail system they use.  Addressing is a
  bigger problem and that's due to the way Digital setup its gateways,
  MTS, etc...  You cannot blame that on TeamLinks.  We are also
  a very unfriendly company on the internet -- we send out mail with
  some awful message sender and reply-to addresses.  Again, this isn't
  caused by the mail clients.

- Someone made a comment that we should use PCs and mail like our
  customers are.  I think we are.  It's the rest of the company that
  has to catch up.  Also, this company has to continue using 
  multiple mail servers, platforms and clients.  That's exactly
  what our customers are using.

- Mike -- you're integrating voice mail into Exchange.  We talked
  about this awhile back.  Wasn't this already done for ALL-IN-1?
  Back then I suggested that you folks build this utility so that
  it could be added into both TeamLinks and Exchange?  Did this
  ever happen?  If not, why?  I certainly hope that the groups
  building add-ins for Exchange are developing them for use with
  TeamLinks as well.  This has the potential to cause further
  internal battles within Digital if we are not leveraging our
  added value products for general use.  (This is not aimed at you
  personally!)

- I hope that letter from Mr. Copperman explaining it all this is
  a good one.  Some TeamLinks customers are returning their licenses
  already.  So I guess the Exchange announcements must be having
  their intended affect.  :-(

- Someone hoped that the TeamLinks people would help implement 20,000
  Exchange clients in Digital after TeamLinks gets the boot.  Gee,
  I can't wait...  Something to look forward too...

Ah, that's all I can think of right now.  I don't know why I bother.
Maybe it's because I still care.  But it's getting harder every day.
We just have to keep smiling, right?! :-)

Bob
 

    Although I'm not a Teamlinks or Exchange user, this discussion has me
    curious about the relative merits and costs of using Teamlinks vs
    Exchange from home. Are there any generalizations that can be made? I'm
    particularly curious about whether I need to use RAS with Exchange or
    maybe its just convenient? I just read that my PC needs more memory to
    use RAS and I also understand I will need an NT domain account. 

    - Bob

>>    Although I'm not a Teamlinks or Exchange user, this discussion has me
>>    curious about the relative merits and costs of using Teamlinks vs
>>    Exchange from home. Are there any generalizations that can be made? I'm
>>    particularly curious about whether I need to use RAS with Exchange or
>>    maybe its just convenient? I just read that my PC needs more memory to
>>    use RAS and I also understand I will need an NT domain account. 

>>    - Bob
    
      With the new RAS infrastructure that's available in digital (see 
      http:\\www-ccs.wro.dec.com\nt), its much easier now to dial in with
      RAS.  I personally believe Exchange is extremely simple to install
      and use when compared to Teamlinks.  You only need to get a digital1
      domain account from the above home page and follow the instructions
      to et up RAS and install Exchange.
    
      As for memory, Teamlinks and Exchange run pretty comparable on the 
      same amounts of memory.  With Windows95 and all the software, 16mb
      is the best performance/price option these days.
    
      Larry

> Here's some info that might settle any numbers disputes.

  I can't take the numbers in .125 very seriously because even
  a casual inspection reveals that a lot of things that *I'D*
  consider mailboxes (and probably, you would too) are missing
  from the list. Taking several examples from different directions:

    o Where's VMSmail? I'll bet there are more than 60,000
      (the smallest number on the list) VMSmail mailboxes
      around.

    o Where are the several different Unix mailers?

    o Where's PROFs and/or whatever mailer runs on MVS, VM/370,
        and their descendents?

    o Where are the between 5,000,000 and 25,000,000 AOL
      mailboxes? And Compuserve? And Prodigy?

                                   Atlant

 -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

    "LAN E-MAILBOXES WORLDWIDE - Estimates as of March 31, 1996, in thousands"
    
    Vendor			Mailboxes
    -------------------------------------
    Lotus cc:Mail		10,000
    Microsoft Mail		 9,100
    Novell GroupWise		 6,000
    Lotus Notes			 5,000
    SoftArc FirstClass		 4,600
    On Technology Da Vinci	 2,500
    CE Software QuickMail	 2,100
    Banyan VINES Mail		 1,500
    On Technology Notework	 1,000
    Banyan BeyondMail		   850
    Futurus Team Combo		   800
    LAN Shark Mail III		   750
    StarNine Mail		   700
    Digital TeamLinks Mail	   500   (1.06% of total)
    ICL TeamWare		   500
    Enable Higgins		   400
    Oracle Office		   400
    Reach Software		   200
    Microsoft Exchange Server	    60
    Others			   200
    ----------------------------------
    Total Worldwide LAN		47,260
    
    "HOST E-MAILBOXES WORLDWIDE - Estimates as of March 31, 1996, in
    thousands"
    
    Vendor			Mailboxes
    -------------------------------------
    DEC All-in-1/MailWorks	 7,000   (23.2% of total)
    IBM OfficeVision		 6,000
    Fischer TAO			 4,000
    Verimation Memo		 2,600
    Uniplex Mail		 2,160
    HP OpenMail			 2,000
    HP OpenDesk			 1,500
    Wang VS Office		 1,500
    NBS Systems TOSS		   650
    Data General CEO		   500
    H&W SYSM			   500
    Software AG Connect		   300
    SunSoft SunNet MHS		   300
    ICL OfficePower		   275
    Bull HN OfficeTeam Mail	   250
    Computer Assoc CA-eMail+	   250
    Quadratron CliqMail		   200
    Unisys OFIS Mail		   200
    Wollongong Pathway Access	   200
    H&W Wizard Mail		   125
    Others			   300
    ----------------------------------
    Total Host			30,810
    
    
    
    

It's clear that the list considers only products specifically sold as
mail-related, and ignores mail client/server capabilities in other products.

				Steve

RE:                     <<< Note 4532.129 by MROA::HEIER_L >>>
>>      http:\\www-ccs.wro.dec.com\nt), its much easier now to dial in with
    
    I think you'll find that's http://www-ccs.wro.dec.com/nt !!!
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      
    
Here is a Mail describing how to get the damage control memo.  I sent Harry 
    Copperman a request about a week ago and the author of this memo a
    request late last week.  Hopefully my customer has received the letter
    but to date, I have not received an acknowledgement that my request was
    received and dispatched from either source.
    
    good luck
    
    
    
    
    
From:	NAME: Paul Rosenbaum @COP           
	FUNC: Southeast Regional Marketing    
	TEL: DTN: 339-5738  (301) 918-5738    <ROSENBAUM.PAUL@A1@GRANPA@DCO>
To:     See Below

There has been much confusion as a result of the Network World article stating 
that Digital is leaving their mail products and moving to Exchange.  For our 
customers that want to continue to invest in a long term strategy with ALL-IN-1 
and TeamLinks, Harry Copperman's office has drafted a letter to reassure our 
customers that Digital will not be abandoning its messaging products.  


If you would like to have this letter sent to your customer please send the 
names and addresses to either myself or Mary Leary.

Paul



Message-id: A317ZWGRMPXCT
From:	NAME: MARY LEARY @COP               
	FUNC: DOD SALES                       
	TEL: 301-918-7721                     <LEARY.MARY@A1@GRANPA@DCO>
Subject: Harry Copperman Letter for DIGITAL Mail Customers                      3
Date:	23-Apr-1996
Posted-date: 23-Apr-1996
Precedence: 0
To:     See Below
CC:     See Below

         We have been informed by the Teamlinks product manager that 
         Harry Copperman has drafted a memo that we can have sent from 
         his office to our customers.  It is very important that we 
         get a list of customers and addresses so that we can request 
         these letters.  These letters will show how serious DIGITAL 
         is in the company's commitment to ALL-IN-1, Teamlinks, 
         Mailbus and other DIGITAL Mail Software products.
         
         We would like to send one request to Harry's office - so 
         please forward your list of customers and names ASAP.  Also, 
         if we have ANY sales situations that we may be able to 
         turnaround if we get you some senior level support, please 
         ensure you elevate them to me also ASAP.  We have superb 
         support from product management and Senior Product management 
         - they want to help us with this one!!
         
         Thanks team, let's keep selling and ensure we show customers 
         that we do have the BEST solution for diverse mail systems.
         
         

To Distribution List:

karen petite@alf,
tim cannon@oro,
jackie brown@fzo,
paul rosenbaum@cop,
yvonne taylor@alf,
rick stetson@wko

CC Distribution List:

jan smith@alf,
bob segal@alf,
steve daniels@alf

To Distribution List:

Susan Ahmed@CBO,
Charlotte Allen@COP,
Evelyn Baron@COP,
Phillip Beckman@COP,
JANET BOBB@COP,
Linda Bramblett@VFO,
Yvonne Chen@COP,
Larry Collins@COP,
ray collins@DCO,
Joe Coughlan@COP,
janet darden@cop,
dennard@dcofs@vmsmail,
SUE FAIRCLOTH@RDO,
John Fisher@RTP,
Dwight Forbes@COP,
Helen Gasper@COP,
Paula Gillespie@DCO,
John Hagerty@RDO,
luke hannon@cop,
Tim Hannon@COP,
Mark Henson@NVO,
Carol Irvin@RTP,
Jeff Jancula@CEO,
Lois Joseph@TNK,
Bill Knight@COP,
Adrienne Kusnirak@PTO,
Shawn Landrigan@COP,
Steve Leventer@COP,
Brett Lowe@alf,
Keith Mayes@DCO,
Nancy McCrone@COP,
Mark Mcintyre@DCO,
BRUCE MCLENDON@COP,
PAT MCMICHAEL@PHH,
Sherry McNeill@COP,
John Mitchell@COP,
Robert Morgan@CEO,
Rokhi Movaghari@VFO,
murley@newvax@vmsmail,
Bruce Murray@DCO,
Sheila Payne@COP,
Jeffrey Perkins@COP,
Bill Perrick@BJO,
MARSHALL PETERSON@COP,
Patti Petry@COP,
Joel Prescott@COP,
Frank Pruss@cop,
Terri Radcliffe@DCO,
Norris Roy@COP,
Maria Schwab@COP,
REDA SHEINBERG@COP,
Mary Siebert@COP,
Larry Talley@COP,
kim tubbs@cop,
Amy VanEsso@LAC,
Sally Wagner@COP,
Debbie Whitehurst@cop,
TOM WOLF@COP,
Eunice Zachry@COP,
Mike Zarudzki@COP,
VK Holtzendorf@COP,
luletha cheatham@cop

         
>         Thanks team, let's keep selling and ensure we show customers 
>         that we do have the BEST solution for diverse mail systems.

If that is the case, then why are we attempting to implement a homogeneous
mail system from one vendor, which runs on a very small subset of the systems
currently in place in the corporation?  This is going to be a hard one for
me to sell my customers on.

    Is this a do as we say not do as we do philosophy?  You Mr/Ms Customer
    continue to use our Heinz 57 kinds, however, we know how frustrating it
    is and Digital can no longer handle it internally and will be imlementing 
    a homogeneous mail architecture.
    
    The customer wants to know what Digital is planning to do NOT what some
    VP thinks they should be doing and we'll be doing something completely
    different.  Our Customers are not looking for some reassurance letter
    from a VP while we're doing something completely different.  Then when
    this VP leaves we can say he took his philosophy with him.
    
    This is not reassuring.

    
    
    
    
    The following letter was just sent out through Reader's Choice. It
    contains the instructions for obtaining the customer letter that should
    pre-empt the reply I entered a few days ago.
    
    Do not send messages directly to Copperman's office. A process is now
    in place and here it is:
    
    
    
                      I N T E R O F F I C E   M E M O R A N D U M
    
                                  Date:     06-May-1996 12:43pm EST
                                  From:     SBU Marketing
                                     SBUMARKETING@A1@SALES@AKO
                                  Dept:      
                                  Tel No:    
    TO: See Below
     
    Subject: Customer Letter: Mail Offering                                         
    
    We know you have received questions and some negative messages about 
    the April 2, 1996 press release on MS Exchange.  Over the past
    several days, we have sent letters to your customers from 
    Harry Copperman's office.   
      
    Attached is a letter you can use with customers to create the 
    balance that can help you to optimize Q4 revenue from both MS
    Exchange servers and our own mail solutions.  We have also 
    listed the letter in the Information Repository for future use.  
    Type VTX IR at the prompt and select document number ST01CZ. 
      
    Send the letter directly on your regional Vice President's
    letterhead, or if you want it to be sent from Harry Copperman, 
    forward your customer's name and address to Maureen Kenney @MRO.  
      
    Maureen will have a letter mailed to your customer under Harry 
    Copperman's signature.
      
    Good Selling,
      
      
      
    Steve Jenkins @ZKO
    V.P., Commercial Software Products Segment
    
    
    
    
    
    
            [Sample Customer Letter]
            
            
            Dear ___________,
            
            Digital's recent Enterprise Services announcement to support 
            Microsoft Exchange as its strategic mail offering for the NT 
            platform has generated some questions about our Messaging 
            strategy.  That's why I'm taking this opportunity to write to 
            you.
             
            We, at Digital, continue to invest in OpenVMS and Digital UNIX 
            through enhancements to:
            
                - MAILbus 400 messaging backbone 
                - Digital X.500 Directory Service
                - TeamLinks clients
                - The next generation of ALL-IN-1 and MailWorks servers 
                  for OpenVMS and Digital UNIX. 
            
            In addition, we are integrating these product offerings with 
            Microsoft's Exchange Server on Windows NT. As Microsoft's 
            premier, worldwide service provider, we are pioneering a 
            large-scale, internal deployment of Microsoft Exchange to 
            build unparalleled expertise.  This effort integrates with 
            our current internal messaging network, which is a 
            heterogeneous environment of OpenVMS and UNIX messaging 
            systems unified with MAILbus 400 and X.500 Directory Services.  
            
            Digital's Messaging strategy encompasses the necessary 
            components for building a robust messaging infrastructure: 
            clients, servers, backbone, and directory services, as well as 
            the supporting hardware and services.  We pride ourselves on 
            our ability to deliver and support the entire messaging 
            solution, whether the solution is on OpenVMS, on Digital UNIX 
            or on a solution provided by a strategic partner such as 
            Microsoft.    
            
            Like you, Digital's business managers select the most 
            appropriate mail clients and servers to satisfy their business
            and organizational needs.  With the Enterprise Services 
            announcement, Digital now offers a full suite of messaging 
            connectivity solutions designed to give you choices in 
            desktop, server, enterprise messaging backbone and operating 
            system.
            
            Sincerely,
    
    
    
    Distribution:  This message was delivered to you utilizing the Reader's
    Choice delivery services.  You received this message because you are part of
    the SBU organization.  If you have questions regarding this message, please
    contact Maureen Kenney @MRO, DTN 297-1442.

    
    Offhand, does anyone know the cost per seat to the cost center
    for a domain account and an exchange account?  I never had a
    "real" mail account (read corporate IS mail account) due to a
    monthly cost.  Of course all sales, managers, logistics, etc
    had accounts.  It was deemed as unnecessary for service engineers
    (who should be out taking calls anyway).
    
    Dennis
    

    I was requesting a pool of 'ip' address for a DHCP environment and the
    cost was $10 per 'ip' address, therefore, I assume it would be about
    the same.  If you need the exact figure call the local IS hotline in
    your area.

    
    Ok,
    
     A customer has asked me for our E-Mail layout. Since we have published
    documents on what we use, has anyone actually considered a diagram on
    where it is being used? I am not interested in real names or real
    places, but sort of a general layout of a world-class E-Mail system
    that has all the gateways, MTA's, user agents and directory services.
    
     Think of it as a pre sales tool. I would even volunteer my services
    to build the document myself, *if* I could figure out, or someone
    supplies me with the info.
    
     What do you all think?
    
    -Mike Z.

    Donna Nowak at OGO is the CCS (Communications and Computing Systems as
    IS is now called) operations manager for the MTS network and
    periodically publishes statistics on messaging systems and traffic at
    DEC. I use her information in my presentations. The CCS folk also
    discuss this internal set up with customers. Be aware that what is
    actually happening may not entirely coincide with high level corporate
    marketing statements. 

    RE: <<< Note 4532.140 by A1VAX::GUNN "I couldn't possibly comment" >>>
       
>>    (Communications and Computing Systems as IS is now called) 
                                               ^^
    
         No, no, no!  IS is IS (formerly IM&T, formerly MIS, etc.)  CCS
    (Connectivity and Computing Services) used to be GPS which used to be 
    CNS, etc...
    
                                      Greg

This is a real jewel. :*)

>Be aware that what is actually happening may not entirely coincide
>with high level corporate marketing statements. 

liesl

    Michael Olasin is the Initiative Driver for Enterprise Messaging.  He
    has some great info on our mail/messaging strategy.  You can get to a
    great Intranet home page thru the SI home page at
    http://ranjen.ogo.dec.com	then click to the Messaging info and set a
    Bookmark..

    Are there any plans to embrace IMAP standard within the organization?
    If so, have we partnered with anybody to provide the necessarry servers
    and clients for our platforms?
    
    - Vikas

  Hi Vikas,
    We currently include an IMAP mail server with the Digital Internet 
  Alphaserver for Unix.  We include a client (Pine mail) that supports
  the IMAP standard.  Most IMAP clients are on the PC.  The University
  of Washington folks have a list of current IMAP mail clients.

           ftp://ftp.cac.washington.edu/mail/imap.software

    Digital is including the post.office commercial product from 
  software.com in our Internet Service Provider solution space.  They 
  currently only support POP-3, but when I last spoke with them, IMAP-4
  support would be offered this summer.

    The IMAP server works great, and is being used by many of our University
  Customers, and now ISP's interested in providing IMAP service.

 
                           Mark

    
              << No connection with a firm of the same name >>
    
    Next week, May 14th to be precise, the Internet Software Business Unit
    will announce AltaVista Mail, an SMTP and POP3 messaging server for
    Microsoft Windows NT, both Alpha and Intel platforms. The next release
    (by the end of the calendar year) of this server will support IMAP4 as
    well.
    
    More information and a down-loadable evaluation kit can be found on the
    ISBU Home Page 
    
    	http://altavista.software.digital.com
    
    This Home Page is accessible to customers or anyone else on the
    Internet.
    
    How soon this technology is adopted internally remains to be seen.
    It's certainly a lot less expensive than Microsoft Exchange.

    How does this compare to TeamLinks?
    If it gets no support will it go the same direction as TeamLinks?
    If the Corporate Strategy is already Exchange why yet another mail
    system?

    How does this compare to TeamLinks?
    If it gets no support will it go the same direction as TeamLinks?
    If the Corporate Strategy is already Exchange why yet another mail
    system?

There are a lot of customer out there that are not mesmerized by Microsoft,
and want an Internet-centric mail strategy.  Glad to see the Internet
Business Unit going after them.

    What about client support?  Which clients will be supported?  What is
    the origin of this mail client?
    
    - Vikas

    
    re -.few back
    
    This AltaVista MAil is a server? TeamLinks is a client right?!?! So
    I can use TeamLinks V2.7EFT3 beyond as my client to your new server?
    
    That's nice.
    -Mike Z.
    

Yes, we have MAILbus (AltaVista Mail) installed on an NT machine
and are making sure that TeamLinks EFT3 with its POP3, SMTP,
and MIME support will work with it.

Jerry

    Re: .147 and after
    
    AltaVista Mail supports any POP3 client including Eudora, Netscape
    Navigator V2.0 mail client, Windows 95 with Microsoft Internet Explorer
    software and TeamLinks Version 2.7 when it ships. It speaks SMTP
    between servers and all connections can be dial-up or permanent.
    
    IMAP4 support will be added before the end of the calendar year.
    
    If all you (and your customer) want is Internet or Intranet mail boxes,
    AltaVista Mail will provide them very economically and reliably. For a
    thousand users each mailbox costs less than two U.S. Postal Service first
    class stamps. Microsoft Exchange would be overkill in such a situation.

    The preception in the Customer's eyes and I'm talking Distributor's and
    Master Reseller is that Digital already abondoned the Mail environment
    with it's recent announcement of moving its 40,000 employees to
    Exchange.  I don't think I'm going to get much mind share when trying
    to sell them yet another Mail Server.  MailWorks was suppose to be the
    best thing since slice bread and we presented that to the Partner via
    the Software Sales Specialist two quarters.  We're now coming around to 
    deliver yet another mail server message???  I don't think this has much 
    chance of making it into our agenda unless we have some pretty powerful 
    message and strategy.  That letter from Copperman is not being well
    received.  It just another paper tiger statement from Digital.

    Re: .153
    
    The lead line on my initial note .146 was deliberate
    
               << No connection with a firm of the same name >>
    
    The market place is not homogeonous. AltaVista Mail is aimed at the
    Internet community. If Digital's traditional enterprise customers want
    to buy it through ABU/SBU channels they can, but they are not our
    primary targets. The Internet Software Business Unit is establishing
    its own indirect channels to the Internet community and those
    organizations who are deploying Internet technology internally as
    so-called Intranets. AltaVista Mail will not be
    marketed/positioned/sold in the same way as MailWorks.
    
    40,000 users represent only about half of the messaging subscribers
    inside Digital (notice I didn't say employees).  Those business units
    which have cozied up to Microsoft are deploying Exchange but it will be
    a while before that project is completed. I have no information as to
    what the other half of the internal messaging community might end up
    using. Having been in the messaging game for fifteen years I have heard
    numerous declarations by customers CIO's that "the corporate standard
    is .... ". I don't know one that has succeeded. Users have this
    terrible habit, if they have to pay for a service, of buying what they
    feel best meets their needs.
    

In the UK we have been told that ALL-IN-1 mail documents will be limited to 
1000 documents per user. 

No doubt an in-depth study has been completed and the conclusion was that no
one needs more than 1000 documents. Furthermore, to have more than 1000
documents must cost more than the cost for the time needed by each user to keep
to the limit.

Being cynical however, it has occurred to me, that MS-Exchange or the 
migration software may have some document limit that is forcing this upon 
us.

Dave.

    Gee-whiz, you get 250 more doc's than I do.....
    
    And worse than that, docs over 60 days old get deleted by the system
    manager, regardless of how I feel about them....
    
    I do, of course, get a notice so I can go retrieve them from the
    wastebasket before the weekend autodump.
    
    I'm really scrambling to put together a WNT server to store teamlinks
    files on so that I have a reliable, robust, document system that I
    control.
    

RE:        <<< Note 4532.156 by ACISS1::ROGERSR "hard on the wind again" >>>

>>    Gee-whiz, you get 250 more doc's than I do.....
>>     
>>    And worse than that, docs over 60 days old get deleted by the system
>>    manager, regardless of how I feel about them....
>>         
>>    I do, of course, get a notice so I can go retrieve them from the
>>    wastebasket before the weekend autodump.
>>         
>>    I'm really scrambling to put together a WNT server to store teamlinks
>>    files on so that I have a reliable, robust, document system that I
>>    control.
    
    I refuse to use ALL-IN-1 so whatever limits are imposed by those who
    impose such things are irrelevant to me. I use VAXMail, and when my
    project-related folders become large and unmanageable (sometimes I even
    archive more often than that!), I use the excellent PAN_TO_NOTES
    facility to archive my mail folders in a VMS Notes conference. This
    gives me lots of advantages, and no-one can tell me how many documents
    I may or may not store. Why let bureaucrats and bean-counters get in
    the way of real work? If I were to lose a lot of stuff I have archived,
    it would seriously hamper my ability to work effectively.
    
    Laurie.

I can see it now, we will have another VAXmail vs. ALL-IN-1 
religious war inside Digital, but this time it will be Exchange
vs. Altavista mail, and we will never have internal consistency.
Thus my  exchange  address  book,  will  not  include  every employee in
Digital.

    Don't knock AltaVista Mail till you tried it .... it's a dead simple
    install (did it today on NT) and heck my Win95 Hinote can talk to it
    via the MS-Exchange client.  Different strokes for different folks, but
    have you ever tried to convince someone they needed TeamLinks/Mailworks
    for their small LAN/WAN when you know it really doesn't scale down that
    well ... the install/configure effort just doesn't make sense in small
    sites.  Also no NT Server for Mailworks/A1.  So instantly we have a
    solution for the low/midrange mail market that doesn't need full-blown
    Exchange.   Heck and we even let you download and try it via the
    Internet.  Also there is online support!
    
    This is a neat, easy to install product!
    
    

    Agreed.  The MAILbus SMTP server (woops sorry - haven't got used to
    AltaVista branding yet!) is a real nice product with an ease of
    installation and operation that belies its MAILbus provenance.  It
    should be high on a customer's shopping list if he can't afford 
    the Exchange overhead.
    
    Re: a few back about not having the whole corporation in your Exchange
    Global Address book because of diversity of corporate e-mail systems. 
    So what? That's life - get used to it!    We will never have consistent
    world-wide corporate application systems.
    
    Are your customers going to be in you address book?  Your family?    
    If not, why not?    How will Exchange help here vs. AltaVista mail?
    This should not be a mail product war issue.  This is a directory
    issue and could be solved quickly and simply  if we had the corporate
    vision & willpower.   For 15 years (FIFTEEN!!!), Digital  has
    engineered and deployed successive generations of the technology  to
    have a common directory feeding multiple mail systems.  The sad part is
    that people who don't understand this think the issue can be solved 
    easily with a one-size-fits-all corporate e-mail "policy".
    
    Looking forward to AltaVista Directory
    
    /Chris.

re .159:

Thanks for the kind words.

Don't imagine, though, that AltaVista Mail is only for light use.  We
have an Internet service provider running it on a single Intel PC to
serve 6000 users.  The product was designed for high load as well as
ease of use and unattended operation.

Nick

> Thus my  exchange  address  book,  will  not  include  every employee in
> Digital.
    
    
    Part of the Elf V3 project is to do exactly that.  A MAPI address book 
    provider will give you integrated access to whole Elf database from
    your Exchange client.
    
    This will also be a component of the AltaVista Directory product.
    
    You can have a corporate wide directory without forcing everyone to use
    the same mail system...


    

    Re: .60
    
    Never meant to imply that AltaVista Mail did not scale up .... just
    wanted to note that it scales down very well, something our other mail
    products do not do.  Easy to install or what!
    
    We are comparing it to Netscape Mail at the customer site and my
    initial test drive gives our product a definite thumbs up while the
    jury is still out on Netscape.  Nice touch on our product is management
    via web browser AND via nice Windows applications.  Netscape Mail on
    the other hand is a browser only approach .... filling in browser forms
    gets VERY tedious!
    
    BTW, is there a notesfile for AltaVista Mail?
    
    Other thoughts ... there is alot of discussion going on in other notes
    and conferences about the decision to use the AltaVista branding for
    all products.  THIS IS A GREAT DECISION!  My customer knows and loves
    AltaVista search engine and immediately this rubs off on the other
    products.  Normally we would have attached a name of a product set that
    has peaked and is declining (ALL-IN-1, MAILbus, etc).
    
    Why do you think Netscape called it Netscape Mail instead of Pop Mail
    for NT/UNIX?  Thank god the MAILbus moniker didn't get applied. 
    MAILbus equals complexity in most people's minds.  Would have been as
    useful as the original name for the MailWorks product set.  

> Why do you think Netscape called it Netscape Mail instead of Pop Mail
> for NT/UNIX?

  Well, I would have guessed it was because it was produced
  by "Netscape Communications Corporation". Note that the
  browser, although universally referred to as "Netscape",
  is actually called "Netscape Navigator(TM)".

                                   Atlant

re Note 4532.164 by ATLANT::SCHMIDT:

>   Well, I would have guessed it was because it was produced
>   by "Netscape Communications Corporation". Note that the
>   browser, although universally referred to as "Netscape",
>   is actually called "Netscape Navigator(TM)".
  
'And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."'

(From the README that comes with the UNIX Navigator.)

    I thought we were branding these software products AltaVista <mumble>
    to make it easier to sell it off.
    
    8-)  sorry, I just couldn't resist that one.  Let's see how far that
    rumour THAT I JUST MADE UP gets.

re .163:

Sorry, we don't have a conference for AltaVista Mail: we're trying to
avoid using VMS- or DECnet-based tools in support of our new products.
There's some discussion in DECWET::NT-TOOLS, though, and you will
get very prompt support from our old support address: that's

	mailbus-support@digital.com

or, if that gets closed down,

	mailbus-support@mrmog.reo.dec.com

Nick

Well, you can certainly use NetNotes on Windows NT to host your conference
with no VMS involved.  By the way, where is the lastest kit located?  The
NT-Tools conference pointers seem to point to older base levels.

    Try www.altavista.software.digital.com .... you'll find a download
    option via that page.

RE: .169

	I think .168 was talking about the NetNotes kit.

RE: .168

	I think it's at www.ostech.com

							mike

    Speaking of mail confusion, Computer Reseller News has reported
    (20-MAY-1996) that MicroSoft is planning another Windows 95 mail
    client, code name Outlook. Can anyone confirm this and position it
    versus Exchange? 

    The reference was very brief only describing Outlook as NOT an Exchange
    client, integrated with Office, faster and less resource intensive than
    Exchange.

    - Bob

    Outlook is a code name for something that Microsoft may or may not be
    developing.....
    
    The Microsoft Exchange Server is a server that can be accessed by any
    MAPI based (and soon POP3 based) clients. I would fully expect that
    Microsoft would be developing new, different, "better", clients to
    access their server.
    
    Whether these new clients should be positioned as "another mail client" 
    or as a "personal information manager client that can also do mail"
    will depend on where Microsoft decide to position and sell it (that is
    assuming that Outlook is more than just a figment of a journalists
    mind).
    
    Cheers, Chris
    
    P.S. 
    By "better" I mean something that is less functional, but faster.... 
    or something that has more facilities, but is slower... 
    or something that is integrated with another application better... 
    or something that is a part of the Windows Explorer... 
    or something that is a part of the Internet Browser etc etc. 
    There are MANY different people, all of whom think of "better" 
    as something different.

    
    The pirate copy of an early Windows 97 Beta that escaped Microsoft
    included a integrated PIM.
    
    dennis

re .171:

I don't know what Outlook might be, but they've got a *very* nice-looking
mail client in beta for Windows 95 and NT V4.0.  I'd call it better than
Exchange because so far Exchange has lost twelve of my mail messages and
I don't think this thing will - it's way too simple.  Only two things I
don't like about the current version: it doesn't import and export mail,
and it has a flat folder space (no subfolders).

http://www.microsoft.com/ie/imn

Nick