IMAP also does not do contacts, calendaring, and other groupware features found in Exchange or Notes. iCalendar / CalDAV are a step in the right direction to enable development of competing groupware products based around open standards, but it's going to be a while until those products are mature enough to actually compete: see Apple's own messy iCal Server implementation in Leopard Server.
True, in order to support any of this takes effort.
IMAP also does not do contacts, calendaring, and other groupware features found in Exchange or Notes. iCalendar / CalDAV are a step in the right direction to enable development of competing groupware products based around open standards, but it's going to be a while until those products are mature enough to actually compete: see Apple's own messy iCal Server implementation in Leopard Server.
Most of this stuff really doesn't work all that much better on Exchange Servers either.. Granted it is all SUPPOSED to.
I'm happy that our office is using Mac OS X Server for all its stuff. Integrating our iPhones will be easy.
First, IMAP is not a push email solution for handsets.
It's supported by Symbian OS9.x and available on all Nokia S60 and Sony Ericsson UIQ based phones as well as some of the lesser Walkman phones too. My kids S500 slider has it even although that's now switched off as it was polling for data and eating her credit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravelgrane
You are probably thinking of the IMAP IDLE function, which requires a dedicated IP address and continuous connection to the Internet. This would be terrible for battery performance and IP address allocation as noted previously. (For more about IMAP IDLE, read this: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html ).
Yes, I am thinking about it. I kind of presumed when I mentioned IMAP that we were talking about a full implementation of it.
It's not terrible for battery performance and it doesn't require a continuous connection to the Internet. It's no worse and quite possibly better than ActiveSync or RIM's solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravelgrane
Second, the iPhone does indeed support IMAP. I am using it for gmail and .mac accounts.
Yes, but it doesn't support IMAP IDLE on those, just on Yahoo! from what I gather.
Why, I've no idea, but it's obviously capable of it but Apple have chose not to allow IMAP IDLE everywhere, which is a pity because many hosting providers including myself support IMAP IDLE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ravelgrane
Third, you're not doing yourself any favors by calling IT staff stupid, at least if you don't do your homework first. ;-)
What stuns me about this story is the stupidity of IT departments.
There's a totally free push email solution that requires no licences, no 3rd party NOCs and Apple already supports on their servers and is available on Linux, UNIX, Windows...
It's called IMAP. You may have heard of it.
Pity the iPhone doesn't support it other than via Yahoo.
??
iPhone supports iMap against any server that offers it. I use iMap from my touch to gmail.
The problem is that asking any seriously large IT org to enable iMap on their external facing Exchange servers is not a trivial request. Ports need to be opened, configs changed across multiple servers (across geos) yada yada.
What I find disturbing is that the points I expected to be under the 'Batting for Apple' section turned out to be yet more arguments against ActiveSync.
I'm glad its being instituted, but I think relying on the MS 'we make it easier' argument is minimally ironic, and at worst dangerous. MS security vulnerabilities tend to come from that argument.
For Apple, 'make it easy' means make it more well designed and usable. Under MS it tends to mean 'make it quick, dirty and sloppy.'
IMAP can be used in SSL mode, though I am not sure if there is a way to prevent a given phone from accessing the server, if it gets lost?
This is not necessarily a problem with IMAP. The iPhone's mail client automatically caches some number of emails (up to 25 by default) regardless of the mail protocol. The corporate folks want to be able to scrub any sensitive data from afar, which includes contact info as well.
It's easier to implement Server, if you have Active sync. IMAP takes much more work, and resources.
IME, that's not true. I'm running Cyrus IMAP and it's no work at all. No more than any other Linux mail server anyway.
There was a story I read last week or so about a company switching to Macs almost entirely including moving to IMAP, Open Directory and iCal. The biggest problem they had was convincing shareholders that Macs are cheaper because you don't have to pay for client licences. Add in licences for push email and they could be a lot cheaper.
It's just kind of sad I think that Apple haven't quite got there with their open source based solutions or even .Mac and now they're relying on Microsoft.
It's easier to implement Server, if you have Active sync. IMAP takes much more work, and resources.
We've only gotten a glimpse of what Apple plans for active sync, there is still a lot that is unknown about their particular implementation of it.
I would think that the issue of keeping track of a device is really a separate piece than the active sync. It seems as though the job of tracking a device by an identifier is already taken care of by some of the same cell services that also give us gps tracking of cell devices, after all the cell companies already keep record in their systems of what devices are connecting where. Seems as though anyone, with the right relationship with the cell company, should be able to gather this information & use it to maintain info about a device. Perhaps AT&T will be partnering in this device tracking.
I think we will all just have to wait & see. iPhone isn't going to overtake RIM overnight. This enterprise solution is in it's infancy & over time will develop as demand changes & increases.
IMO, the method in which the data is PUSHed is less significant than how the mobile platform deals with that information. I.e. Mail, and even Safari on the iPhone have changed the mobile online experience. Both apps just receive data, but what makes it so impressive is how these apps deal with that data.Now compare these apps with other mobile phone's apps. Meaning that previous phones that have used activesync in the past were not written to be as 'smart' and 'robust' as the implemenation of PUSH in the iPhone.
Gustav, I'm glad someone like you is here to tell me exactly how to perceive my working requirements. I feel much better now that you have pointed out that what I thought was a professional requirement is nothing more than a false sense of self-worth. Thank you sooooo much! </sarcasm>
(IDIOT!)
So instead of actually refuting my point with actual facts, you resort to personal insults. How very mature and intelligent of you.
Please tell me why you need to have instantaneous email notification rather than waiting for an email client to poll the server every minute (or even five minutes). Please tell me why this is so important to you.
Prove to me that I am an idiot; otherwise grow up and keep the insults to yourself.
There is a difference between what people need and what people want, but at the same time they both offer the opportunity to sell something to these people. The difference is that even if someone needs something they might not buy, but if someone wants something, then they are more likely to buy even if the don't need it.
A solution provider will satisfy the customers wants, because that's what they are there for. Who are they to decide if the customer doesn't need it.
I agree - and this is kind of my point. If customers were more realistic of what their needs vs. their wants were, we'd be a whole lot more happier, and vendors could spend their time working on features that would actually make our lives better, rather than satisfy a false need that just makes us feel like we're more important than we are.
If people would admit that they didn't really need push email (and I still challenge anyone to tell me why they need it), then RIM, Apple, and others could work on different features that actually make using a mobile device more productive and enjoyable.
No, IMAP was never intended for any of this. And IT people don't like the idea of opening that port in their firewall for it.
Uh, what are you talking about? IMAP over SSL is a standard. Why would IT people not like the idea of opening up that port? It's like saying people are afraid to open up an HTTPS port. Or use a VPN. Or provide further auth via LDAP, AD, or SASL. Give me a break.
IME, that's not true. I'm running Cyrus IMAP and it's no work at all. No more than any other Linux mail server anyway.
There was a story I read last week or so about a company switching to Macs almost entirely including moving to IMAP, Open Directory and iCal. The biggest problem they had was convincing shareholders that Macs are cheaper because you don't have to pay for client licences. Add in licences for push email and they could be a lot cheaper.
It's just kind of sad I think that Apple haven't quite got there with their open source based solutions or even .Mac and now they're relying on Microsoft.
So there are no problems with syncing to Exchange, or remote wiping, or setup. Opening the port on your server doesn't give you cause for concern? Push mail has been working fine? With high security? Your contacts work well? how about the rest of the services Apple can now offer on the phone with this? I believe someone else mentioned Calenders and groupware? You use that as well?
What's really a shame is that all this hubbub about a feature nobody actually needs.
Push isn't about getting e-mail faster, it's about delivery (really notification) not being a function of the handset. It is more than IMAP IDLE (battery hog, which is why the iPhone doesn't have it I assume).
But, without an external blinking LED saying you have new mail, the value that push offers is fairly limited; you still have to unlock the device to determine if you have new mail. Even the unlock screen showing new mail isn't good enough, and I really don't want the device to "wake" on each new message.
Uh, what are you talking about? IMAP over SSL is a standard. Why would IT people not like the idea of opening up that port? It's like saying people are afraid to open up an HTTPS port. Or use a VPN. Or provide further auth via LDAP, AD, or SASL. Give me a break.
Perhaps you should do some reading on this. IMAP is not something that IT people like to use for their corporate phones.
One reason is that IMAP doesn't support calendar and contact synchronization. They have to do local sync instead. This whole problem with IMAP's potential vulnerabilities include VPN tunnel exposure, incompatibility with company mandated-VPN client security tools and unaudited local information exchanges with the users workstation.
As I've said before, IMAP was not intended for this purpose.
So there are no problems with syncing to Exchange, or remote wiping, or setup.
Hold your horses there Mel. We're just talking about push mail here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Opening the port on your server doesn't give you cause for concern?
Of course not. It's just a port. Nothing goes in or out of a server without a port being open.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Push mail has been working fine?
Yep. Works great thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
With high security?
With the same security of any mail service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Your contacts work well? how about the rest of the services Apple can now offer on the phone with this? I believe someone else mentioned Calenders and groupware? You use that as well?
That's not part of push email.
However, it just got me thinking there. Apple Mail (on Mac OSX) of course uses IMAP folders for Notes and ToDos. Like the rest of their enterprise features beyond Open Directory and using open source tools like Cyrus, it's a bit half assed and flakey, which is a big pity.
I had great hope in Apple's SyncServices and what they were doing with .Mac but they've just seemed to have no focus in finishing what they've started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Are you using this for hundreds of phones?
Dunno. We host about 300 domains so I suspect I'm not up to 'hundreds' of phones.
Hold your horses there Mel. We're just talking about push mail here.
Of course not. It's just a port. Nothing goes in or out of a server without a port being open.
Yep. Works great thanks.
With the same security of any mail service.
That's not part of push email.
However, it just got me thinking there. Apple Mail (on Mac OSX) of course uses IMAP folders for Notes and ToDos. Like the rest of their enterprise features beyond Open Directory and using open source tools like Cyrus, it's a bit half assed and flakey, which is a big pity.
I had great hope in Apple's SyncServices and what they were doing with .Mac but they've just seemed to have no focus in finishing what they've started.
Dunno. We host about 300 domains so I suspect I'm not up to 'hundreds' of phones.
We're not just talking about push mail. We're talking about iMap vs. RIM, vs Exchange Activesync, etc.
I guess we can add Cisco's IPsec, and two factor auth, certificates and identities into the mix as well.
Hosting domains is not the same as supporting hundreds of corporate phones.
Comments
IMAP also does not do contacts, calendaring, and other groupware features found in Exchange or Notes. iCalendar / CalDAV are a step in the right direction to enable development of competing groupware products based around open standards, but it's going to be a while until those products are mature enough to actually compete: see Apple's own messy iCal Server implementation in Leopard Server.
True, in order to support any of this takes effort.
IMAP also does not do contacts, calendaring, and other groupware features found in Exchange or Notes. iCalendar / CalDAV are a step in the right direction to enable development of competing groupware products based around open standards, but it's going to be a while until those products are mature enough to actually compete: see Apple's own messy iCal Server implementation in Leopard Server.
Most of this stuff really doesn't work all that much better on Exchange Servers either.. Granted it is all SUPPOSED to.
I'm happy that our office is using Mac OS X Server for all its stuff. Integrating our iPhones will be easy.
I think you are confused on a number of points.
No I'm not.
First, IMAP is not a push email solution for handsets.
It's supported by Symbian OS9.x and available on all Nokia S60 and Sony Ericsson UIQ based phones as well as some of the lesser Walkman phones too. My kids S500 slider has it even although that's now switched off as it was polling for data and eating her credit.
You are probably thinking of the IMAP IDLE function, which requires a dedicated IP address and continuous connection to the Internet. This would be terrible for battery performance and IP address allocation as noted previously. (For more about IMAP IDLE, read this: http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/imap-idle.html ).
Yes, I am thinking about it. I kind of presumed when I mentioned IMAP that we were talking about a full implementation of it.
It's not terrible for battery performance and it doesn't require a continuous connection to the Internet. It's no worse and quite possibly better than ActiveSync or RIM's solution.
Second, the iPhone does indeed support IMAP. I am using it for gmail and .mac accounts.
Yes, but it doesn't support IMAP IDLE on those, just on Yahoo! from what I gather.
Why, I've no idea, but it's obviously capable of it but Apple have chose not to allow IMAP IDLE everywhere, which is a pity because many hosting providers including myself support IMAP IDLE.
Third, you're not doing yourself any favors by calling IT staff stupid, at least if you don't do your homework first. ;-)
Pot, kettle, black?
What stuns me about this story is the stupidity of IT departments.
There's a totally free push email solution that requires no licences, no 3rd party NOCs and Apple already supports on their servers and is available on Linux, UNIX, Windows...
It's called IMAP. You may have heard of it.
Pity the iPhone doesn't support it other than via Yahoo.
??
iPhone supports iMap against any server that offers it. I use iMap from my touch to gmail.
The problem is that asking any seriously large IT org to enable iMap on their external facing Exchange servers is not a trivial request. Ports need to be opened, configs changed across multiple servers (across geos) yada yada.
What I find disturbing is that the points I expected to be under the 'Batting for Apple' section turned out to be yet more arguments against ActiveSync.
I'm glad its being instituted, but I think relying on the MS 'we make it easier' argument is minimally ironic, and at worst dangerous. MS security vulnerabilities tend to come from that argument.
For Apple, 'make it easy' means make it more well designed and usable. Under MS it tends to mean 'make it quick, dirty and sloppy.'
This will be interesting to watch play out.
Most of this stuff really doesn't work all that much better on Exchange Servers either.. Granted it is all SUPPOSED to.
I'm happy that our office is using Mac OS X Server for all its stuff. Integrating our iPhones will be easy.
It's easier to implement Server, if you have Active sync. IMAP takes much more work, and resources.
IMAP can be used in SSL mode, though I am not sure if there is a way to prevent a given phone from accessing the server, if it gets lost?
This is not necessarily a problem with IMAP. The iPhone's mail client automatically caches some number of emails (up to 25 by default) regardless of the mail protocol. The corporate folks want to be able to scrub any sensitive data from afar, which includes contact info as well.
It's easier to implement Server, if you have Active sync. IMAP takes much more work, and resources.
IME, that's not true. I'm running Cyrus IMAP and it's no work at all. No more than any other Linux mail server anyway.
There was a story I read last week or so about a company switching to Macs almost entirely including moving to IMAP, Open Directory and iCal. The biggest problem they had was convincing shareholders that Macs are cheaper because you don't have to pay for client licences. Add in licences for push email and they could be a lot cheaper.
It's just kind of sad I think that Apple haven't quite got there with their open source based solutions or even .Mac and now they're relying on Microsoft.
It's easier to implement Server, if you have Active sync. IMAP takes much more work, and resources.
We've only gotten a glimpse of what Apple plans for active sync, there is still a lot that is unknown about their particular implementation of it.
I would think that the issue of keeping track of a device is really a separate piece than the active sync. It seems as though the job of tracking a device by an identifier is already taken care of by some of the same cell services that also give us gps tracking of cell devices, after all the cell companies already keep record in their systems of what devices are connecting where. Seems as though anyone, with the right relationship with the cell company, should be able to gather this information & use it to maintain info about a device. Perhaps AT&T will be partnering in this device tracking.
I think we will all just have to wait & see. iPhone isn't going to overtake RIM overnight. This enterprise solution is in it's infancy & over time will develop as demand changes & increases.
This enterprise solution is in it's infancy & over time will develop as demand changes & increases.
huh???
It's Exchange Server and Microsoft's ActiveSync technology. It's hardly in it's infancy.
Gustav, I'm glad someone like you is here to tell me exactly how to perceive my working requirements. I feel much better now that you have pointed out that what I thought was a professional requirement is nothing more than a false sense of self-worth. Thank you sooooo much! </sarcasm>
(IDIOT!)
So instead of actually refuting my point with actual facts, you resort to personal insults. How very mature and intelligent of you.
Please tell me why you need to have instantaneous email notification rather than waiting for an email client to poll the server every minute (or even five minutes). Please tell me why this is so important to you.
Prove to me that I am an idiot; otherwise grow up and keep the insults to yourself.
There is a difference between what people need and what people want, but at the same time they both offer the opportunity to sell something to these people. The difference is that even if someone needs something they might not buy, but if someone wants something, then they are more likely to buy even if the don't need it.
A solution provider will satisfy the customers wants, because that's what they are there for. Who are they to decide if the customer doesn't need it.
I agree - and this is kind of my point. If customers were more realistic of what their needs vs. their wants were, we'd be a whole lot more happier, and vendors could spend their time working on features that would actually make our lives better, rather than satisfy a false need that just makes us feel like we're more important than we are.
If people would admit that they didn't really need push email (and I still challenge anyone to tell me why they need it), then RIM, Apple, and others could work on different features that actually make using a mobile device more productive and enjoyable.
No, IMAP was never intended for any of this. And IT people don't like the idea of opening that port in their firewall for it.
Uh, what are you talking about? IMAP over SSL is a standard. Why would IT people not like the idea of opening up that port? It's like saying people are afraid to open up an HTTPS port. Or use a VPN. Or provide further auth via LDAP, AD, or SASL. Give me a break.
IME, that's not true. I'm running Cyrus IMAP and it's no work at all. No more than any other Linux mail server anyway.
There was a story I read last week or so about a company switching to Macs almost entirely including moving to IMAP, Open Directory and iCal. The biggest problem they had was convincing shareholders that Macs are cheaper because you don't have to pay for client licences. Add in licences for push email and they could be a lot cheaper.
It's just kind of sad I think that Apple haven't quite got there with their open source based solutions or even .Mac and now they're relying on Microsoft.
So there are no problems with syncing to Exchange, or remote wiping, or setup. Opening the port on your server doesn't give you cause for concern? Push mail has been working fine? With high security? Your contacts work well? how about the rest of the services Apple can now offer on the phone with this? I believe someone else mentioned Calenders and groupware? You use that as well?
Are you using this for hundreds of phones?
What's really a shame is that all this hubbub about a feature nobody actually needs.
Push isn't about getting e-mail faster, it's about delivery (really notification) not being a function of the handset. It is more than IMAP IDLE (battery hog, which is why the iPhone doesn't have it I assume).
But, without an external blinking LED saying you have new mail, the value that push offers is fairly limited; you still have to unlock the device to determine if you have new mail. Even the unlock screen showing new mail isn't good enough, and I really don't want the device to "wake" on each new message.
Uh, what are you talking about? IMAP over SSL is a standard. Why would IT people not like the idea of opening up that port? It's like saying people are afraid to open up an HTTPS port. Or use a VPN. Or provide further auth via LDAP, AD, or SASL. Give me a break.
Perhaps you should do some reading on this. IMAP is not something that IT people like to use for their corporate phones.
One reason is that IMAP doesn't support calendar and contact synchronization. They have to do local sync instead. This whole problem with IMAP's potential vulnerabilities include VPN tunnel exposure, incompatibility with company mandated-VPN client security tools and unaudited local information exchanges with the users workstation.
As I've said before, IMAP was not intended for this purpose.
So there are no problems with syncing to Exchange, or remote wiping, or setup.
Hold your horses there Mel. We're just talking about push mail here.
Opening the port on your server doesn't give you cause for concern?
Of course not. It's just a port. Nothing goes in or out of a server without a port being open.
Push mail has been working fine?
Yep. Works great thanks.
With high security?
With the same security of any mail service.
Your contacts work well? how about the rest of the services Apple can now offer on the phone with this? I believe someone else mentioned Calenders and groupware? You use that as well?
That's not part of push email.
However, it just got me thinking there. Apple Mail (on Mac OSX) of course uses IMAP folders for Notes and ToDos. Like the rest of their enterprise features beyond Open Directory and using open source tools like Cyrus, it's a bit half assed and flakey, which is a big pity.
I had great hope in Apple's SyncServices and what they were doing with .Mac but they've just seemed to have no focus in finishing what they've started.
Are you using this for hundreds of phones?
Dunno. We host about 300 domains so I suspect I'm not up to 'hundreds' of phones.
Hold your horses there Mel. We're just talking about push mail here.
Of course not. It's just a port. Nothing goes in or out of a server without a port being open.
Yep. Works great thanks.
With the same security of any mail service.
That's not part of push email.
However, it just got me thinking there. Apple Mail (on Mac OSX) of course uses IMAP folders for Notes and ToDos. Like the rest of their enterprise features beyond Open Directory and using open source tools like Cyrus, it's a bit half assed and flakey, which is a big pity.
I had great hope in Apple's SyncServices and what they were doing with .Mac but they've just seemed to have no focus in finishing what they've started.
Dunno. We host about 300 domains so I suspect I'm not up to 'hundreds' of phones.
We're not just talking about push mail. We're talking about iMap vs. RIM, vs Exchange Activesync, etc.
I guess we can add Cisco's IPsec, and two factor auth, certificates and identities into the mix as well.
Hosting domains is not the same as supporting hundreds of corporate phones.