Sucking e-mail from Exchange Server vis HTTP?

Grant Edwards grant at nowhere.
Thu Jan 20 10:44:46 EST 2000


In article <38871EA1.8AF33147 at sage.att.com>, Garrett G. Hodgson wrote:

>> The admin shut off both POP and IMAP to try prevent people from
>> using mail clients other than Outlook.  He's convinced
>> management that people who don't use Outlook were increasing
>> his workload.
>> 
>> IMAP used to be enabled to allow people to check e-mail from
>> home using Outlook Express, but once he figured out how to
>> enable the web interface, he told people to use that from home
>> and then he shut off IMAP (I was using fetchmail and mutt
>> at the time).
>
>while i expect you'll learn a lot solving your technical
>problem,

My motto: "You never know what will be useful at the next place
           you work."

>you should also pay some attention to your political problem.
>an out of control sysadmin doesn't do anyone any good. you
>might try and engage your other colleagues, gather some data,
>and enlist some management support.

Well, it's a long story.  Feel free to hit [tab] at any time:

I've been here about six months.  I'm told there was a big
fight about this a few months before I started.  Apparently,
before BOFH started, we had a Linux machine that acted as the
mail server (POP3 and SMTP).  People used whatever mail client
they felt like (Eudora, Elm, Outlook, Outlook Express, etc.).

Everybody was happy.

Then BOFH showed up and trashed the Linux machine and put in
Windows NT.

Then he complained that it was too much work supporting
POP/IMAP, and he wanted everybody to use Outlook.  People
resisted (particularly the Unix users, most of whom left
shortly thereafter).  The fight went all the way to the
president of the company, and the decision was made that
everybody use Outlook.  (Why is management always so big on
monotony and so down on individuality?)

Since people wanted to be able to read their e-mail from home,
he was forced to leave IMAP/SMTP services enabled so that they
could use Outlook Express or Netscape. 

I showed up and started using mutt via IMAP/SMTP. Everthing was
fine as far as I was concerned [Except that our DNS server was
broken so that forward and reverse lookups didn't match for
DHCP clients.  I pointed this out to him the first week I was
here, but I don't think he understood what I was talking
about.]

He noticed I was using something other than Outlook (he's never
heard of mutt, sendmail, fetchmail, or anything else non-MS),
so he disabled plaintext logins in the IMAP server and also
required SMTP authentication.  He claimed it was for security
reasons, but it happened about two hours after he came and
asked me how I was getting my mail -- something he was unable
to figure out on his own.  Apparently the broken DNS server
resulted in the MS SMTP server not knowing where to send bounce
notifications when I sent e-mail to an invalid address.  Rather
than fix the problem with the DNS/SMTP, his solution is to tell
users not to do that.  [IOW: don't fix a server's
configuration, shut it down!]

So I set up an out-of-office rule to forward all of my mail to
somewere else (where I could use ssh/mutt). He noticed I was
doing that, so he shut off forwarding mail to outside
mailboxes.  (Also, we presume, justifiable on security
grounds.) BOFH may have problems getting a server to work
right, but he can always figure out how to shut off a server.

I added NTLM authentication code to mutt and fetchmail (and
appropriate authentication code to ssmtp). I then resumed using
mutt via IMAP/SMTP.  

He complained to my boss (who is also his boss -- which
complicates things politically).  Our boss more or less ignored
the complaint. He did ask me what I used for e-mail, and I told
him.  He sort of implied that BOFH had told him that people
using IMAP required too much support. I told my boss that I had
never asked BOFH for any support, and I asked why having the
IMAP server enabled was such a burden. He admitted that he
didn't understand why it should be.

BOFH then set up the Outlook Web thingy and shut off IMAP
completely.

As a temporary measure, I installed VNC, set a Windows machine
up over in the corner underneath the table, and now have a nice
Windows desktop that shows up in an X window on my _real_
computer.

Meanwhile, I've got Python code running on the Windows box that
can read my inbox.  I've also got prototype code to shove the
messages out to the SMTP server on my real computer.  After I
figure out a general way to transform Exchange format addresses
into SMTP style addresses, I'll bolt the whole thing together
and once again be using mutt for my MUA.

[I use an outside mail account for 90% of my mail traffice, so
this is all probably less important that I make it sound.]

>f'rinstance, why is *his* workload the dominant factor?  

I pointed out to my boss that BOFH could reduce his workload
even further by not supporting any network services at all.

>have him defend and document what actual, measured effects
>there would be to his workload if he enabled POP and IMAP.
>gather info from outlook admins to challenge his assumptions.

My boss (who is also BOFH's boss) thinks the guy does a good
job -- which he does, as long as everything is done his way and
you don't need anything done that he doesn't care about (like
having a DNS server that works right).

>or just get some big guys and go kick his ass.

I'm still building up "political capital" as it were.  I'm not
going to start a fight unless I know that if push comes to
shove, I'm not the one who gets the shove.

My colleagues all find the whole thing amusing in a Quixotic,
Children's Crusade sort of way.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow!  Where's th' DAFFY
                                  at               DUCK EXHIBIT??
                               visi.com            



More information about the Python-list mailing list