Mail for Exchange (MfE). Blame me here, pls - Page 103 - maemo.org

jsa | # 1021 | 2010-01-26, 22:48 | Report

Originally Posted by nightfire View Post

Does anyone know if the activesync code used on the n900 is open?

If Nokia can't or won't allow our devices to lie about its capabilities (understandable), certainly we could build an extras package that does.

I really need exchange support but there is 0 chance corporate will change the server policy just for me.

It isn't, at least at the moment. Vitaly said earlier that he personally would like it to be open sourced, but it isn't a decision he can make. Hope he is rooting for it behind the scenes.

alcyst | # 1022 | 2010-01-27, 10:09 | Report

Following on from MortenS; I too have an (upto date) N900, I also work in an organisation with MfE 2003, I also read the packaging where it says (and the nokia website still says) "Synchronise your contacts to Outlook." & "Push Email, calendar and contacts with Mail for Exchange.", and I studied the one page ads in some major business newpapers where the N900 is pushed as a phone (not a technical project/toy).

People who like what they have can enjoy themselves, Vitaly deserves some respect for putting his hand up, but at this point Nokia should at least change the copy.

THavoc | # 1023 | 2010-01-27, 11:07 | Report

Originally Posted by IlkkaP View Post

If N900 were not intended to be an enterprise phone, it would not have MfE in the first place.

I don't know what it was intended as, I just know what it is. The whole e-mail experience (which should be the main focus for an enterprise device) is just not on feature-parity with other smartphones on the market, not even Nokia's own. And for a new "flagship" device I don't think feature-parity as a goal is enough.

Originally Posted by IlkkaP View Post

It would be waste of resources to develop the phone just for "Linux geeks" and forget "enterprise users".

Ah, I would really, really, really like to know what's the strategy behind Maemo :-)

SkyEagle | # 1024 | 2010-01-27, 12:07 | Report

Originally Posted by THavoc View Post

I don't know what it was intended as, I just know what it is. The whole e-mail experience (which should be the main focus for an enterprise device) is just not on feature-parity with other smartphones on the market, not even Nokia's own. And for a new "flagship" device I don't think feature-parity as a goal is enough.

I totally agree with you. I understand that N900 is quite "new" but these functions are BASIC function for a "internet tablet" like NOKIA says. The Modest client is really poor !
We need better and more functions, local seach, filters etc etc.

Not to speak about Calendar app

! Really basic ! I think also that the problems in sync with Exchange 2003 are due to recurring events, probably not supported in calendar.

Adding functionality to MFE and these apps is the top priority I think. We can even live with no portrait mode for some months but WE NEED, as business user, solid PIM apps and sync functions.

Originally Posted by THavoc View Post

I
Ah, I would really, really, really like to know what's the strategy behind Maemo :-)

I fear we never know these aspects.
Nokia has a great platform with Maemo but it needs to invest on in heavily and in short time...the competition is fierce and we'll have new Android and IPhone platform in few moths...if Nokia doesn't prepare a comparable product it will loose the battle for the new leading edge smartphone platform for-ever.

We'll see what will happen...for me after the inital entusiam now I a bit worried to have choosen the wrong device for my use...

juhanima | # 1025 | 2010-01-27, 15:29 | Report

Originally Posted by Rob1n View Post

Looks like wildcard certificates do work okay. The problem is that MfE is not following the certificate chain (which the server makes available). I have to extract & load the immediate parent CA certificate in order for MfE to work.

N900 contains a command-line tool called cmcli which you can try and use to debug this. Please try this at the terminal:

Code:

cmcli -T common-ca -v <your-server-dns-name-or-ip-address>:<port-number>

...for instance cmcli -T common-ca -v localhost:443. In your case the port number is probably something else than 443, though. Or if the chain of trust ends with a user-installed certificate and not in some of the 118 pre-installed ones, please try

Code:

cmcli -t ssl-ca -v <your-server-dns-name-or-ip-address>:<port-number>

The output should be something like this:

Code:

0115e5345e4dd64855ed1e3d44060be25f26c2e6 nixu-jum
 trust chain(1):
   b5567d6c9eef05f07966d98eb2a85716bff4e80d Maemosec test CA
Verified OK

...or...

Code:

0115e5345e4dd64855ed1e3d44060be25f26c2e6 nixu-jum
 Verification failed: self signed certificate

...depending whether the verification fails or not. If cmcli succeeds in verifying the connection but MfE does not, this must be a bug and it would be highly appreciated if you filed one in bugs.maemo.org.

with best regards,
Juhani Mäkelä
Maemo Platform Security

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to juhanima For This Useful Post:
jutl, Rob1n, sjgadsby, tomster

tomster | # 1026 | 2010-01-27, 15:52 | Report

Would you mind me putting this on the Heartbeat wiki?

Rob1n | # 1027 | 2010-01-27, 15:53 | Report

Originally Posted by juhanima View Post

N900 contains a command-line tool called cmcli which you can try and use to debug this. Please try this at the terminal:

Code:

cmcli -T common-ca -v <your-server-dns-name-or-ip-address>:<port-number>

Thanks for that - it reports "Verification failed: unable to get local issuer certificate". The web browser is perfectly capable of validating the certificate though, so is this doing something differently?

hypoxic | # 1028 | 2010-01-28, 04:14 | Report

vitaly_repin, can you please clarify the following line in the http://wiki.maemo.org/Mail_For_Excha...rtbeat_and_FAQ

If you use PR1.0 (sales release) it is hardly advised to update to PR1.1. See PR1.1 summary for additional details and update instructions.

Does this mean it is recommended, or is not recommended, to upgrade to PR1.1? My main goal is working google calendar support, but regardless the wording of the wiki might could be tweaked for a better understanding.

And as other have mentioned, thanks for coming to the community to help aid transparency, even though it may not be what we want to hear <G>

SubCore | # 1029 | 2010-01-28, 11:04 | Report

Originally Posted by hypoxic View Post

Does this mean it is recommended, or is not recommended, to upgrade to PR1.1? My main goal is working google calendar support, but regardless the wording of the wiki might could be tweaked for a better understanding.

i have edited the wiki page, the upgrade to PR1.1 is recommended.
i'm pretty sure it was just a translation error.

The Following User Says Thank You to SubCore For This Useful Post:
hypoxic

vitaly_repin | # 1030 | 2010-01-29, 10:54 | Report

Sorry for not appearing in this thread for so long time. I will come back next week or even week after next week. I am having extremely busy business trip now.

Sorry, guys!