Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

E-mail is it an application or ?

0 helpful
6 replies

by millhouselives

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
A few of my I.S. friends are currently in discussion's (job description & salary)with their mgr's regarding e-mail: Is e-mail an application or part of network infrastructure. Depending on what it is, determines what technical position would supportit. For instance when I am told that it is an application; that means a pc specialist can support it. When told that is is part of the network structure, then that means a network analyst or eng. would support it. As you may suspect by now it would be advantageousfor a "mgr" to say application because salary wise a PC specialist receives a lower salary than a network analyst or eng. What do you think?

6 replies

by ddenenberg

Interesting topic...

In my experience, it is very difficult to segregate an email app, like Exchange, into just one of these categories.

A team effort is usually required to implement, maintain, and troubleshoot email services.

The IS department may be able to configure mailboxes, aliases, optimize and tune performance, replication, and correct 75% of all issues. But the IT side would be responsible for connectivity, bandwidth, hardware performance/issues, proxies, firewalls, and other mail-related networking issues.

Certainly the size and scope of the organization would have a large impact on the human resources required. If you are talking about a 1 server, 100-user mail system, I'd treat the position as application-centric.

But for larger orgs, go with an exchange (mail) group that includes at least one expert in the application and networking disciplines.

I'm hesitant to recommend the mail admin be a networking person. Normally, their focus is not on applications and they already have enough problems trying to stay proficient in the Layer-3 on down arena.

Dave

by rzan

Email software is on layer 7 of the OSI model (the application layer). The infrastructure of your network lies on the first 4 layers of the OSI layer (physical, data-link, network, and transport). Your cabling, hubs, switches, routers, and firewalls constitute your infrastructure. The confusion lies on the fact that your e-mail system is built around your WAN environment, which in essence is your infrastructure, but e-mail is not part of the infrastiurcture, it is an application or service, depending on how you look at it.

by treasury

would like to know how to implement an e-mail system in a local area network environment. could you direct me to some great resources new technologies so that i can apply it to our medium size business.
will appreciate any help =)

by goon

I don't believe E-mail should be part of either category.
First of all, some organizations mix up systems admins/engineers and network admins/engineers. Most people know that network infrastructure is comprised of LAN/WAN technologies, such as switches, routers, hubs, etc. However, some people tend to lump their systems, and Operating Systems administrators under the "network" label, equating Windows/UNIX networking with LAN/WAN networking. However your organization decides to define these systems administrators, they should be personnel dedicated to the maintenance of these systems, not "PC specialists" or LAN/WAN network personnel.
Too many organizations make the mistake of implementing an E-mail solution, and not allocating the correct technical personnel to support it. I don't think you (or management) would enjoy being in the middle of a disaster recovery of the E-mail servers when a PC specialist has been administering your email servers without the technical knowledge to do it properly. I can understand PC techs supporting client side E-mail software, but not on the server side.
So my opinion is that the server component should be classified as part of infrastructure, but as a system rather than network. And you should have personnel dedicated to systems, just as you have personnel dedicated to networking and desktops.

by admin

Actually, this is kind of funny as he described the application he invented as a "quick hack" and meant it only for his own use. Obviously, it got out, and now a few people have figured out that it's got a slew of difficulties including, I suppose, this one. It is definately an application, but made for and by the tech savvy, so interfaces must be built and these interfaces such as in Outlook are best served by the pc specialist. Is there any question at your company about who should run Apacheor the web server program of your choice? probably not the end user or pc specialist. Same deal though. It's an app. Just one Network Specialists can probably figure out how to use a little more efficiently.

Actually, your whole company sounds crazy with this definition, I mean, do pc specialists go around running the packet sniffers and other "apps" that network specialists use all day? What about theSysco "apps" for the routers? Apps vs. Network Infrastrucure is a stupid way to define who does what, IMHO. They both rely on each other. You should get your company to change their language or they will get a bunch of mad inefficient computer employees over the long haul.

:>

by admin

If e-mail get's determined an "app" in your current companies view, who's going to go to management and say:"someone spoofed our account and our server crashed when 30,000 complaint letters and a few hostile attacks hit our server...." Who would of been taking care of security? Do the PC specialists have the ability to switch the server into another space temporarily to keep your companies mail up? How would this work?

It seems easiest to just say:" some parts of the "app" (client side) belong to specialists and some parts (server side) belong to the Network guys, otherwise you could have a real mess with hair splitting and lack of properly distributed responsibility.

Just my 12 cents.

This discussion is closed to new replies.