comparision between zimbra and lotus

[chandu]

Hi,

one of my professional friend is thinking to switch over their company's lotus setup to another unix based email solution. Their team started testing on most of the products..he asked me about zimbra..i have given good feedback as i m happy with my zimbra setup...but he specifically wanted to understand comparision between Domino and Zimbra Network edition in respect to SECURITY concerns.
i searched for this comparision but couldnt get any much information.
zimbra security details i found in below link :

Zimbra automatically installs best-of-breed anti-spam and anti-virus services to protect you

But is there any other link or document which high light all features of zimbra network edition in respect to security. And comparision between domino (lotus) and zimbra network edition...


Please help.

Note: I apologized if i put this question in wrong section..


Thanks

[greenrenault]

Here you go - completely off the top of my head and by no means authoritative. From a Lotus/Notes Domino expert and now Zimbra convert.

I've listed only those Domino features that are applicable to a Zimbra environment.

Domino features that just *do not* exist in Zimbra.
- Public/private encryption for emails
- Email signing to identify authenticity and tampering (man-in-middle)
- Shared encryption keys for emails
- Server to server replication, although there are ways to implement this just not out of the box yet

Domino-like features that exist in Zimbra.
- Offline access and replication of email using Zimbra Desktop - COOL!
And a lot of others...

Zimbra features that just do not exist in Domino (or Domino does it poorly)
- Anti-virus, anti-spam
- Automated backups with option for restore
- Shared calendars and calendar overlays
- Sharing folders
- Shared contacts
- Shared tasks
- Brief case
- Server Admin UI
- Web client UI
- In fact, lets just say the whole usability thing!
- Client performance
- Very good support for open standards. Domino supports some standards well, others poorly.