Timeline for Does CiviCRM VERP work with a mailbox on Microsoft Small Business Server 2011?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2015 at 19:35 | comment | added | Chris Burgess | CiviCRM supports using Exchange (civicrm.stackexchange.com/q/2322/149), but Exchange doesn't support VERP. CiviCRM can have even better Exchange support if/when someone contributes energy towards it. "Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." :) Scratch your own itches; if that seems like a good place for your org to contribute, go for it! | |
| May 18, 2015 at 12:18 | comment | added | Graham | Whilst I understand, and in many ways agree with Xavier and @Chris-burgess in that we do live in a world where VERP-capable mail systems are plentiful, we also live in a world where many potential users of CiviCRM already rely on Exchange. As a consequence of not supporting Exchange don't we make it harder for those orgs to successfully implement CiviCRM? | |
| May 9, 2015 at 7:27 | comment | added | Chris Burgess | @Graham perhaps, but that means some org or devs putting further effort into implementing an (inferior, since reduced functionality) no-VERP approach, in a world where VERP-capable mailboxes are plentiful and cheap/free. Time better spent elsewhere IMO. | |
| May 8, 2015 at 10:13 | comment | added | Xavier | Personally, compatibility with exchange isn't high on my list, but I see the benefit (that's why I added the "verp header" in the core already). The risk is that folks will use that inferior option even if they have a mail server that can actually handle VERP. | |
| May 8, 2015 at 10:02 | comment | added | Graham | This would be a useful feature to get into core? | |
| May 8, 2015 at 7:27 | history | answered | Xavier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |