From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 7 18:34:31 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B592916A4CE for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:34:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from skyweb.ca (smtp-2.vancouver.ipapp.com [216.152.192.163]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51B2643D4C for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2005 18:34:31 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mjohnston@skyweb.ca) Received: from [192.168.15.82] ([64.42.246.34]) by smtp-2.vancouver.ipapp.com ; Thu, 07 Apr 2005 11:34:24 -0700 From: Mark Johnston To: Matt Ruzicka In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 13:34:19 -0500 Message-Id: <1112898859.7918.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Country: CA cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Webmail Recommendations X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:34:31 -0000 On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 10:19 -0600, Matt Ruzicka wrote: > Unfortunately we are looking for something with a reasonably slick > interface (SquirrelMail is maybe lacking in this department a bit), as > well as a solid backend. As we all know people only care if they notice > the backend causes them problems, but almost everyone seems to care how > something looks. After much deliberation and poking at different webmail systems, we shelled out for the @Mail (http://www.atmail.com) webmail component - about $800 IIRC, which buys you the full source. It's all perl and runs under mod_perl, so it goes really fast. We run it mainly with IMAP, but some customers are using it for off-site POP3 servers, which it seems to handle well too. I haven't needed tech support, so I can't judge that. As far as the interface, it's very slick-looking; under IE it puts up a simulation of MS Outlook, and in Firefox and other browsers it has a nice-looking lightweight feel. They have an online demo linked from their site, and a downloadable (obfuscated source) demo as well. Caveats: the interface is pretty static - if you want to make changes to it, you can expect to invest some significant time in that. Also, we haven't put it under serious load yet, so I can't be sure about hardware requirements. Horde was my second choice, and I do actually run it on a personal server. It's pretty tricky to get going, and the interface is less polished, but it's served its purpose well for me. HTH, Mark