Um... okay, I don't want this anymore

[adefaria]

Not really. The installation is simply inflexible and makes too many assumptions of the users environment.

[agnOstos]

Yeah, I guess you're correct there. Sorry about the last post. I guess I'm just jaded yunno?

[Billy]

I had my problems installing, but finally got it right. Once I understood the requirements and what to expect, it made perfect sense to do it this way. This type of application SHOULD be set up in it's own environment. The only other thing I wanted to run is Bind, and that works fine.

Leave the standard install the way it is and work on speed issues instead. I'll take speed and high confidence over 'everything for everybody' any day.

[adefaria]

Originally Posted by Billy

I had my problems installing, but finally got it right. Once I understood the requirements and what to expect, it made perfect sense to do it this way. This type of application SHOULD be set up in it's own environment. The only other thing I wanted to run is Bind, and that works fine.

That's fine that all you want to run is Bind - but some of us want to run more than just that! That's like saying you buy a new car and it takes over your whole garage. That's fine if it's only you and this new car is taking the spot of your old car. But some people have multiple cars and other family members driving their own vehicles and they will not appreciate you taking over the whole garage!

Leave the standard install the way it is and work on speed issues instead. I'll take speed and high confidence over 'everything for everybody' any day.

I have no qualms with having the standard install be a monolithic, take over your web site and email thing. Just allow options to not take over your site and instead confine Zimbra to a subsection of your web site and allow it to work with other already industry standard compliant MTAs.

Now for that last request, I do understand how it may be difficult to do because certain functionality (i.e. calendaring) that Zimbra wants to support may not be available from another MTA like the Exim I'm using. I would switch to using Zimbra's IFF I can still use my own spam filters, which work very well for me. I don't want SpamAssasin.

[KevinH]

Originally Posted by adefaria

That's fine that all you want to run is Bind - but some of us want to run more than just that! That's like saying you buy a new car and it takes over your whole garage. That's fine if it's only you and this new car is taking the spot of your old car. But some people have multiple cars and other family members driving their own vehicles and they will not appreciate you taking over the whole garage!

Well in this case you're getting the car for *FREE*. We also give you an option to have the car in parts (aka source). So if you *really* don't like the way we put it together you can roll your own.

Regardless we hear your concerns as we've mentioned 2 or 3 times now on the other thread. We will with time make these changes to make the installer more flexible. It just wasn't our *first* priority.

Originally Posted by adefaria

I have no qualms with having the standard install be a monolithic, take over your web site and email thing. Just allow options to not take over your site and instead confine Zimbra to a subsection of your web site and allow it to work with other already industry standard compliant MTAs.

Now for that last request, I do understand how it may be difficult to do because certain functionality (i.e. calendaring) that Zimbra wants to support may not be available from another MTA like the Exim I'm using. I would switch to using Zimbra's IFF I can still use my own spam filters, which work very well for me. I don't want SpamAssasin.

It's not hard. In fact it's very easy, as those on the forums who have already posted their results can attest to. You can do this today with a little bit of hacking.

Your specfic request about spam filters is even easier. Just run your spam filters in front of Zimbra, on a different port or on a different box.

We look forward to your input as we make the changes you've suggested. Thanks for being part of our community.

[Michael]

Why do so many people think every app should be suited to them? I have an office with 60 employees and have been outsourcing POP access to large TELCO. Wanted to provide IMAP and Webmail services in-house. Loaded a server with base Linux, loaded Zimbra, BAM! Works perfect. Small learning curve, too. The main point is unless I install under a VM, I do not want anything else running on this machine. It will be a production email/webmail server. I believe that is the design intended or at least along those lines. If I had to configure and maintain all these components independently, I would not bother, I have only average Linux knowledge currently. Zimbra is the sort of app that is ideal for me precisely because it takes over all these things and includes all that is needed in a single installation. I want to put it in a rack, load it, do some administration and maybe a little maintenance from time to time, but otherwise forget it. You guys are right on target with this product. Also, you Zimbra folks do a great job on these forums. If this guy wants all the features in a webclient only product, that works in the exact manner he wants-let him code it himself. If this did not work for me the way I need it to, I use something else. He can do the same. Seems he knows how great some of the features are which is why he wants your webclient. There are plenty of webclients he can use independently that do things the way he wants, they just aren't as slick. He is probably on their forums complaining why can't he have the drag and drop and the calendaring and hovering and database integration, etc, etc, etc.

[Maja]

For those that are concerend with the impact on your existing services, you are overlooking the easy solution. In the case in point here, it is a home network, which means you have an abunance of IP address at your dispossal. If you want to keep everything seperated, assign a virtual IP to that server, thus giving it two listening addresses, and bind all the Zimbra services to your newly added VIP.

I guess the point is, when you read the documentation, it states that Apache, MySQL, etc... are going to be installed. Let's just assume they are going to use default ports for these, thus we know we are going to run into conflicts. Leave your current configuration bound to "localhost" and bind everything else to a secondary IP address. One server, two functions.

[marcmac]

Yeah, but we don't support selecting only one IP. (And when we do, we're likely to want the loopback interface, too)

[Maja]

[EDIT]Nevermind. I see there is actually a bug opened on this approach.

Aren't you just basing the IP, during installation, off the hostname? I'd assume in most real-world situations, your server is going to have more then one interface, thus more then one IP address.