![]() |
2010-01-26
, 22:48
|
Posts: 289 |
Thanked: 560 times |
Joined on May 2009
@ Tampere, Finland
|
#1021
|
![]() |
2010-01-27
, 10:09
|
Posts: 6 |
Thanked: 0 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#1022
|
![]() |
2010-01-27
, 11:07
|
|
Posts: 40 |
Thanked: 21 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#1023
|
If N900 were not intended to be an enterprise phone, it would not have MfE in the first place.
It would be waste of resources to develop the phone just for "Linux geeks" and forget "enterprise users".
![]() |
2010-01-27
, 12:07
|
Posts: 56 |
Thanked: 17 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Italy
|
#1024
|
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
Ah, I would really, really, really like to know what's the strategy behind Maemo :-)
![]() |
2010-01-27
, 15:29
|
Posts: 11 |
Thanked: 85 times |
Joined on Jan 2010
@ Helsinki
|
#1025
|
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.
cmcli -T common-ca -v <your-server-dns-name-or-ip-address>:<port-number>
cmcli -t ssl-ca -v <your-server-dns-name-or-ip-address>:<port-number>
0115e5345e4dd64855ed1e3d44060be25f26c2e6 nixu-jum trust chain(1): b5567d6c9eef05f07966d98eb2a85716bff4e80d Maemosec test CA Verified OK
0115e5345e4dd64855ed1e3d44060be25f26c2e6 nixu-jum Verification failed: self signed certificate
![]() |
2010-01-27
, 15:52
|
Posts: 71 |
Thanked: 33 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Munich, Germany
|
#1026
|
![]() |
2010-01-27
, 15:53
|
Posts: 3,617 |
Thanked: 2,412 times |
Joined on Nov 2009
@ Cambridge, UK
|
#1027
|
![]() |
2010-01-28
, 04:14
|
|
Posts: 23 |
Thanked: 20 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
|
#1028
|
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.
![]() |
2010-01-28
, 11:04
|
|
Posts: 850 |
Thanked: 626 times |
Joined on Sep 2009
@ Vienna, Austria
|
#1029
|
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to SubCore For This Useful Post: | ||
![]() |
2010-01-29
, 10:54
|
|
Posts: 320 |
Thanked: 763 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Espoo, FInland
|
#1030
|
![]() |
Tags |
activesync, certificate, email, exchange, fremantle, ignore tex14, maemo 5, mail for exchange, mfe, n900, provisioning, sync, thanks vitaly! |
|