|
2010-02-26
, 17:39
|
Banned |
Posts: 109 |
Thanked: 10 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#1262
|
The implicit assumption with the iPhone is that the user has no real control over the device and for the vast majority of users this is true and jailbroken devices should be banned by your admins.
The N900 implicitly assumes the user can and will gain root access ti the system, which totally defeats the purpose of requiring provisioning.
|
2010-02-26
, 17:48
|
Posts: 1,746 |
Thanked: 2,100 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
|
#1263
|
|
2010-02-26
, 18:24
|
Banned |
Posts: 109 |
Thanked: 10 times |
Joined on Feb 2010
|
#1264
|
|
2010-02-26
, 19:09
|
Posts: 3,617 |
Thanked: 2,412 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Cambridge, UK
|
#1265
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Rob1n For This Useful Post: | ||
|
2010-03-03
, 16:18
|
Posts: 87 |
Thanked: 14 times |
Joined on Aug 2009
|
#1266
|
Not usually - the provisioning levels mostly required are password restrictions, remote lock & remote wipe (though there's something like 27 different provisioning options). You could probably manage remote wipe through MfE (of contacts/calendar anyway), but not the others.
EDIT: Oh, and if this is an issue for you, please make sure to vote for the relevant bug
|
2010-03-03
, 16:43
|
|
Posts: 3,203 |
Thanked: 1,391 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Worthing, England
|
#1267
|
|
2010-03-03
, 18:13
|
Posts: 376 |
Thanked: 56 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
|
#1268
|
|
2010-03-04
, 16:43
|
Posts: 188 |
Thanked: 28 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#1269
|
|
2010-03-04
, 20:14
|
Posts: 188 |
Thanked: 28 times |
Joined on Jun 2007
|
#1270
|
Tags |
activesync, certificate, email, exchange, fremantle, ignore tex14, maemo 5, mail for exchange, mfe, n900, provisioning, sync, thanks vitaly! |
Thread Tools | |
|
The N900 implicitly assumes the user can and will gain root access ti the system, which totally defeats the purpose of requiring provisioning.