[Printout | Contents | Search ]

E-mail Task Force update: Office Systems Working Group

By Noam Arzt, Chris Shull, and Katie McGee

Since the spring of 1994 the E-mail Task Force Office Systems Working Group has sought to identify standards and products that meet the University's requirements for advanced electronic mail. The Working Group has been testing and evaluating products rigorously, and had hoped to recommend replacements for Elm, Eudora, and All-In-1, three widely used e-mail products on campus.

However, like its counterparts in other colleges and universities, the Working Group has been disappointed in the market's ability to meet core needs for advanced e-mail, particularly location independence and good desktop integration. Although the Group continues to test and evaluate new products, it now recommends continued support for Elm and Eudora. Users of incompatible mail products, such as All-In-1 and VAXmail, are encouraged to switch soon to Elm or Eudora.

Why switch to Elm or Eudora?

Making the switch now means that you will be using products that comply with Penn's e-mail architecture, and that your eventual migration to successor products will be easier - since new products will comply with the architectural standards. Such standards are increasingly important at Penn because they help keep training and support costs in check and allow people across campus to work together more effectively.

The two standards that form the basis of Penn's e-mail architecture are SMTP (Simple Mail Transport Protocol), the IP/Internet standard for message transport, and MIME (Multi-purpose Internet Mail Extensions) for document attachment and file enclosure.

Which to choose

Elm is a host-based product offering location independence but limited integration with desktop-computing environments. Eudora is a desktop product that offers good integration with the Mac and Windows desktop environments, but limited support for people working from multiple desktop computers or locations.

Users of incompatible mail products who have sufficient desktop hardware (see the desktop hardware standards recommended for Penn in the February 1995 Penn Printout) and little or no need for location independent access to e-mail should switch to Eudora.

Users of incompatible mail products who either have insufficient desktop hardware or who need access to mail without regard to location should switch to Elm.

Because Elm and Eudora are both SMTP/MIME compliant, departments can switch users to the products that best suit their desktop facilities and work requirements.

If you need help

For assistance in planning or implementing e-mail systems for your department, contact your local support provider or Al D'Souza, Director of Network Services and Support, DCCS (dsouza@dccs or 898-2429). For information on ISC standards, contact Noam Arzt (arzt@dccs or 898-3029). Noam Arzt, Chris Shull (shull@isc or 898-5930), and Katie McGee (kmcgee@sas) are co-chairs of the E-mail Task Force Office Systems Working Group.

Sidebar: Requirements for advanced e-mail

Detailed requirements were developed during Fall 1993 and presented to the University community for comment. The core functional requirements are:

• Retention of the basic messaging features supported by the host-based e-mail systems now in use (which SMTP facilitates)
• Support for mailing any kind of file, such as spreadsheets, graphics, or word-processing documents (which MIME facilitates)

Three additional environmental requirements, which often clash with one another, are:

• Integration of an e-mail product with a graphical desktop environment (like MS-Windows or MacOS)
• Support for location independence, which is the ability to work from many locations and have access to the same data, services, user settings, and preferences
• Scalability of the mail server platform to accommodate a large number of users