No, you were clear. It was apparently me that was not.
There are a few edge cases where I feel SBS (nor EBS) applies. More
specifically, there are cases where I feel *Exchange* doesn't apply.
Exchange is a great "integrated" product. If you have a system where almost
every domain user needs an email account and vice-versa and those two
numbers are close to matching, Exchange is an ideal solution. You buy SBS
or EBS based on size and other considerations.
But if you need *many* more email accounts than domain accounts (or vice
versa) then SBS or EBS may not be a good fit. Exchange itself may not be a
good fit. Its licensing is prices as an integrated product and can get
prohibitively expensive when used outside of that design. When, for
example, is the last time you've seen Exchange as an email solution at an
ISP (as evidenced by OWA as their webmail client?)
I believe that in this case, another solution might be more appropriate.
But again, without having quite a bit more information, I couldn't recommend
what that solution would be. If it were me, I'd not be planning anything
without a serious conversation with the client to get some information,
provide some options, set some goals and expectations, and perhaps explain
why SBS is not a good fit...
"dsatchell" <support@newsgroup> wrote in message
> Sorry I wasn't clear. I am aware of the 75 user limit of SBS 2003 and I do
> realize that EBS 2008 would probably be better but as I mentioned they
> already have SBS 2003 and I doubt they would pay for the upgrade and
> significant cost just to give 200 people access to Exchange when they hav
> been working fine with POP3.
> Only the widget.com domain would be a part of SBS. I would like
> @tx.widget.com (Texas) ; @es.widget.com (Spain) ; etc ; to be hosted as
> on the internet. But I don't want the SBS portion (widget.com) to be POP3