Sorry for the first message. I did not include the revised recommendations.
Debi
________________________________________________________
From: Allison Debra on Mon, Jun 27, 1994 10:19 AM
Subject: Revised RFQ
To: Miami's Electronic Mail
Cc: MCIS-Administration
You may recall that we sent out a Request for Comments on the committee's
recommendations for Miami's email infrastructure and deliverables, on March
30. We asked for your comments by April 8. We received comments/suggestions
from one person (Barbara Edwards) and her comments are included at the
appropriate points below.
Please email me with your comments by Wednesday, July 6. If it appears that
we need another meeting to come up with our final recommendations, we will
schedule one.
I apologize for not getting this out to you sooner. I was consumed by a
project to replace Wang equipment for 13 offices; those requisitions are now
out, so I can get back to other projects. (48 Macs and 40 IBMs were ordered.
The only offices still using Wang equipment that we are aware of are Student
Financial Aid and Admission, both of which will have their equipment replaced
prior to or at the time of the move to CAB.) Getting the Wang equipment
replaced does impact our email project, since it means 13 more offices (3
academic departments; 10 administrative departments) will have broader
network service coverage.
As another FYI, the Wang replacement project also involved upgrading some
central services for purposes of mainframe printing and uploads/downloads --
services that were available from the Wang OIS/VS computers, but not
available from a network connection. We have placed on order TCP/IP for MVS,
which will allow telnetting directly to MVS. To provide the necessary
mainframe printing services, we have on order the Novell SAA Gateway, which
will allow MVS and VM to print to network-connected printers which are
defined as Novell print queues. I will be sending out an announcement to the
MUDIVREP list, since their input was incorporated into these plans.
Hope to see you at the 1:00 email audioteleconference today in 360 Gaskill.
----START HERE----
This version of the Email project recommendations includes comments and
recommendations added by Barbara Edwards. It is being circulated for your
review and comments. Where she makes a recommendation for an addition, it
will be added unless there are objections expressed in response to me. Where
she asks a question, please email to me your suggestions.
Next steps: We need to develop a task list of items to be accomplished, with
responsible person listed and timeframes listed.
Email Project - Recommendations
March 28, 1994
April 13, 1994: Barbara Edwards comments added
Subgroup members: Debra Allison, Kent Covert, Barb Edwards, John Harlan,
Peter Murray, Rob Pickering
A. Recommendations - Qi server/Ph client; Mail Redirection
1. Qi and In-bound Mail Redirection: up in test this summer; in production
before Fall 1994 on Rose and/or VMS (Technical Services to decide, in
consultation with Client Services (John Harlan) and Instructional Computing
(Barb Edwards)).
2. University Directory Survey: (a) ask for preferred email address on form
requesting directory updates; (b) include Library question [what does this
mean?] or statement on email notices. John Harlan to contact Publications to
get this included.
Barb's comments: Have we requested that a system be built to maintain the Qi
directory?
a. Is there a process being defined for taking the information off the
directory update forms and updating the Qi server?
b. Are we defining a process for coordination between updates of hard copy
and availability of softcopy updates?
c. Are we defining procedures for coordination of the installation of
undergraduate accounts and the updating of the Qi server.
d. Will the e-mail addressed be part of the paper directory?
e. What is the procedure for documentation and updating of such?
f. What about "unlisted numbers"?
3. Kerberos: Investigate using Kerberos authentication as university-wide
security scheme. Goal: a university-wide security scheme in place by Summer
1995 (we recommend Kerberos). Steve Moore to look at Kerberos on VM.
Barb's concern:
There are several issues with regards security left over from old
discussions. Has John Andrea been involved?
4. Passwords in Qi database (to allow modifications to data elements in Qi
database): we recommend that the database be (a) modifiable and (b)
authenticated (to be determined by Client Services, Technical Services,
Security, in consultation with Internal Auditing). This is a long-term
recommendation, tied to Kerberos implmentation.
5. Queries to the Qi databaseto be provided via:
a. Gopher and Web (Fall 1994)
b. Ph client (Fall 1994 in test, but unsupported - at Level 3+)
c. Mail packages - ASAP; tied to selection of mail packages.
Barb's concern: Will all this be added to enduser on VM? Will there be DCL
and Scripts written for VMS and UNIX for the clients to use? Is technical
services exploring this issue?
6. Alias structure in Qi data base recommended to be:
a. unique
b. eight characters
c. same as university-wide account ID (Tim and Barb have different
recommendations on this -- Tim: 1st 6 characters of last name, first initial,
middle initial (to permit sorting by last name); Barb: first initial, middle
initial, 1st 6 characters of last name (to correspond to exisiting IDs).
We recommend that the Qi alias be: first initial, middle initial, 1st 6
characters of last name, except in the case of a duplicate where a digit is
needed to distinguish, e.g.
RAPICKER
RAPICKE1
RAPICK10
RAPIC100
What will "from" address show to the world? Does it have to be the alias,
or do we want it to be? John Harlan to check with Notre Dame, since their
"from" addresses are "friendlier."
Rob to check if Qi and Kerberos ID name limitations are 8 characters; he
will also try to find out about X.500.
We recommend Mail.Name@domain for use by sender when email address is
unknown. Example: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask] will all cause the message to be sent to Peter E.
Murray's preferred email address. If P.Murray is used and there is more than
one match, information on all matches will be returned to the sender as
bounced mail and sender will choose based upon info in Qi database.
Barb's comments: Please add as a recommendation:
There will be a record in the directory entry that identifies the real
person by full name and Miami Id number (currently social security number is
used). This comment should be consistent with the personnel record or the
student master file record.
For ids not associated with a single person there will be a person
identified for that mail box and that person will be recorded in the comment
card.
This comment and the userid should be in a file or database that is
regularly updated and easily accessed by system management.
We recommend that the lowest character count be used as mail identifiers.
---end Barb's comments for #6---
7. Long-term direction: Our stated long-term direction is to replace the Qi
server with an X.500 server. Qi evolves nicely into X.500 (Ph client can
query X.500 server; Qi server database can be ported to X.500).
Barb's comment for #7:
Please add to the recommendation:
X.500 is a stated goal and will be re-evaluated in 3 years as the technology
evolves.
IMAP/POP Recommendations
1. Recommendation: IMAP as a replacement for Microsoft Mail and Pegasus
Mail,with an alternative (POP) where desirable or required.
Barb's comments for #1:
Concern: This recommends IMAP as a replacement for Microsoft Mail and
Pegasus Mail. What about Open-VMS and VM mail? Currently there are
significant numbers of mail users on VM and VMS. Please be aware- CPPO has
requested VM accounts for at least sophmores and juniors and maybe first year
students by January, 1995 and will continue their request for all seniors for
August, 1994.
---end comment---
Timeframe: IMAP - test group of 100 faculty/staff/students July-Dec. 1994.
Hope to have Qi server available at start of test.
Test participants require:
a. Reliable (added by Barb) Network connection to desktop, or at a lab for
students (LTCs or divisional labs)
b. IMAP/POP-accessible account on one host (Technical Services to decide
whether ROSE or OCEAN, in consultation with Client Services (John Harlan) and
Instructional Computing (Barb Edwards)).
c. Start with core test group and ask them who they email (workgroup
commonality); then include them.
Barb's comment:
Start with a small test group that is computer as well as e-mail literate.
Expand this test to workgroups of the initial group.
d. We want a variety of clients (MS Mail, PMail, new users (Bill Slover?);
high-volume users).
e. IMAP/POP software (1/2 using public domain client; 1/2 using commerical
client). Debi and Kent to solicit vendors for evaluation/test copies.
f. Way to re-route mail to new address for MS Mail, etc. since test
participants won't want to tell the email world that they have a new address.
We need:
a. Solicit eval client software from vendors
b. Ask for volunteers. Do they want IMAP or POP client?
c. Documentation for test participants on all platforms
Barb's comments:
Criteria for IMAP or POP selection
Software installation procedures
Directions on how to use software
Directions on how to update records in central databases
d. Help Desk involvement in the test (preferably including interaction by
e-mail via Target->Hotline, so that we can test the software with Hotline)
e. Involvement from Instructional Computing, Networking, Technical Services,
Client Services (including Help Desk).
Barb's comments:
Please add these recommendations:
f. Procedures for installing mail boxes for users.
g. Licensing and distribution issues to be part of the evaluation process
h. Training and documentation for support staff in areas where tests will
be conducted.
---end comment---
C. Critical Success Factors - How will we know we've succeeded, and what
factors are most likely to determine whether we're successful?
1. Client Services says installation/maintenance concerns are easier with
this set of solutions.
Barb's comments:
Please add these Factors.
a. Ease of use to include
How quickly the software installed
Clients ability to update records
Ability to determine another persons address
Ability to inform someone else of users address
---end of comment
2. Mail gets delivered reliably (probably the #1 CSF)
3. Survey of client satisfaction.
a. Ease of use?
b. perception of reliability
c. perception of usefulness
d. comparison with old sysem
e. would client continue to use/recommend this solution?
4. During test, check with clients. Are they still using the new solution,
or did they revert to their previous product?
5. System benchmarks - performance monitoring, server sizing.
6. Total cost/scalable cost comparison (added functionality, freed
resources?)
Barb's comments:
6. Please add this to the evaluation:
(... ,installation of volumes of mail boxes, distribution of software and
collection of fees)
|
