UCB Messaging Initiative

Brad JudyInformation Technology Services

What is the project?

• Broad electronic messaging initiative• Scope:

– All aspects of e-mail– Interfaces between core messaging services

and other services (WebCT, voicemail, web)– Exploration into other forms of messaging (IM,

mobile messaging, web based messaging)• An umbrella project that will launch several

sub-projects

Motivations

• Campus IT Strategic Plan– Several aspects of e-mail noted for

improvement• IT efficiencies study

– Numerous dept running own e-mail services• Exchange project for Vice Chancellors

– Centrally run Exch service for ~120 key staff• Laundry list of required and desired

improvements

Process

• Background research in technologies and trends

• Examination of own infrastructure• Input gathering – internal and external• Consolidation and prioritization of input• Establish a direction for messaging

services• Initiate sub-projects according to priority

Existing Infrastructure

• Sendmail, UWash IMAP, POP (limited)• IMP/Horde webmail interface• Spam Assassin for message tagging• Hesiod lookup system• Sun/Solaris based systems• Separate student and fac/staff e-mail

hosts (share common web interface)• E-mail is an official form of communication

for students

Mail Flow

• Fully documented central mail flow• Multipurpose exercise

– Better understand how to improve system– Force Brad to learn more about messaging

infrastructures– Actually document something that often is not

documented

Immediate Spam Issue

• The volume of spam and tagging rate was not meeting user expectations

• Refining SA and adding tests increased fac/staff system tagging rate to >95%

• Increased access list work greatly reduced the overall volume of spam

• Student system still using fewer tests due to lack of CPU resources (>70% tagging rate)

Weekly spam totals Jan 18th - Sept 18th (user: judy)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Num

ber o

f mes

sage

s

Weekly spam tracking (username judy)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Week of

Jan 1

8th

Week of

Jan 2

5th

Week of

Feb

1st

Week of

Feb

8th

Week of

Feb

15th

Week of

Feb

22n

d

Week of

Feb

29th

Week of

Mar

7th

Week of

Mar

14th

Week of

Mar

21st

Week of

Mar

28th

Week of

Apr

4th

Week of

Apr

11th

Week of

Apr

18th

Week of

Apr

25th

Week of

May

2nd

Week of

May

9th

Week of

May

16th

Week of

May

23rd

Week of

May

30th

Week of

Jun 6

th

Week of

Jun 1

3th

Week of

Jun 2

0th

Week of

Jun 2

7th

Week of

Jul 4

th

Week of

Jul 1

1th

Week of

Jul 1

8th

Week of

Jul 2

5th

Week of

Aug

1st

Week of

Aug

8th

Week of

Aug

15th

Week of

Aug

23rd

Week of

Aug

30th

Week of

Sep

t 5th

Week of

Sep

t 12th

Date

Num

ber o

f mes

sage

s

Total FPUnmarkedMarked

Rejection and Tagging of E-mail

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

1000000

1200000

1400000

9/3/2004 9/4/2004 9/5/2004 9/6/2004 9/7/2004 9/8/2004 9/9/2004 9/10/2004 9/11/2004 9/12/2004 9/13/2004

LegitimateRejectedTagged

Input Gathering

• Meetings with various internal groups• Meetings with external IT advisory groups

– IT infrastructure advisory group– Faculty IT advisory group

• Student portal survey

High Priority Core Service Input

• E-mail list processing system– Easier to manage lists and subscriptions– Better handling of multiple e-mail addresses– Course roster lists

• Web based threaded discussion– Better technology for some uses of lists– Currently in WebCT in a limited form

High Priority Core Service Input

• E-mail processing architecture– Where/how should spam/virus be done?– Ensure resources are sufficient to meet

performance expectations– Improve student processing to match fac/staff

• E-mail security– Signed official communication

Medium Priority Input

• Overall e-mail architecture review• Exchange project• Better integration of services• True e-mail development environment• Improvements to webmail interface• Policy review/improvements• Small device support (PDA, mobile

phones)

Exploratory Input: Voice

• Convergence of voice and electronic messaging

• Voicemail via web or e-mail• VoIP pilot in progress – tightly connected

to other forms of messaging• The line between IM and VoIP may be

impossible to draw (IP based, soft phones, voice and video in both technologies)

Exploratory Input: IM

• Is there a benefit to a campus level instant messaging service?

• Directory integration provides the potential for a benefit, but is the benefit just having self reported IM information in the directory?

• Some departments are using IM/chat tech internally or even with customers (libraries virtual reference desk)

Exploratory Input: Student E-mail

• Students enter and leave the school with external e-mail identities and accounts

• Is a campus e-mail account important or is it merely a temporary, extra account?

• Is the e-mail identity really the useful service?

• Should active student e-mail be merely a forwarder like alumni e-mail?

• Is this concept compatible with e-mail as an official form of communication?

Describe e-mail account use

Only CU

Mostly CU

Half

Mostly other

Only other

Student Survey Input

• Portal survey– One week– Digital camera give away

• Lower than normal response rate (only ~195 instead of 350-380)

• Good distribution of year and gender