Active Topics

 


Page 16 of 158 « First 61415 16 171826 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
shujaa is offline shujaa
2009-11-29 , 23:11
Posts: 5 | Thanked: 2 times | Joined on Nov 2009
#151
I just got my phone on Friday and am starting to experience some of the quirks of the exchange implementation. To a great extent it's working great and with exchange 2010 to confirm that question!

Here's my input for consideration (If not covered in previous responses):
- Better exchange calendar integration i.e. I receive a meeting request, I can accept it and it subsequently add's it to my calendar (device and exchange) and sends a response to the meeting organizer.
- Unread email count on mailbox screen (maybe a counter next to the title)
- Fewer steps to get to inbox. E.g. launch email>selecmailbox>go directly to inbox and skip folders. The palm pre does this very well and it's quite useful
- Autoload of images
- Different color for priority mail (e.g. make the email red in the inbox)

Other items such as GAL search have been covered so no need to mention here.

Thanks for reaching out for feedback, it's the best way to make sure you invest your time in the right feature set for end users.

Cheers.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shujaa For This Useful Post:
fouro is offline fouro
2009-11-30 , 07:17
Posts: 36 | Thanked: 22 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki
#152
Originally Posted by vitaly_repin
If you need the device to be provisionable - let Nokia know somehow. I personally strongly against having this feature - want to have more privacy and don't want Exchange server administrator to manage my device. I have very bad experience with this feature in S60 when I lost all my data on the phone which was connected to my employer's Exchange. But I understand that big corporations at other side of the Ocean usually think that the data in employee's device is fully owned by the company and the employee is not supposed to store anything personal there.
So as far as I understand, if the device isn't provisionable and your employer wants you to lock your phone to be able to sync with MfE (aka requiring the provisionalbe device), you're out of luck - no MfE for you?

And it was delibrate decision to leave it out.. because you don't like it personally? Or you're just not willing to make it issue because you don't like it personally, unless we find some other way to tell Nokia that it's important?

One might imagine that if your employer requires this setting, it's because it's corporate policy to require that the device is locked if you sync it with MfE (at least this is how it is where I work). This kind of is logical: I doubt that many corporations would like that stolen/forgotten handset gives easy access to mail. If you don't like it and don't want to go along with the policies, then you don't have to sync your device.

So it's not a question about storing personal stuff to your phone, it's about securily accessing the work related information that's often something these companes don't want to ending up in wrong hands.

At least maemo.nokia.com says following:

Access your Microsoft Exchange inbox, calendar, and contacts from your device with support for Mail for Exchange.
I don't see any warnings that it might not work in certain situations, so I'd at least expect that it would work where other MfE clients too. Am I missing some basic understanding about how MfE works, aka this support for provisionable devices just some extra feature that shouldn't be there? If not, the it would be completely reasonable to expect that it would work as advertised.
Last edited by fouro; 2009-11-30 at 07:21.
 
vitaly_repin's Avatar
vitaly_repin is offline vitaly_repin
2009-11-30 , 09:01
Posts: 320 | Thanked: 763 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Espoo, FInland
#153
Originally Posted by fouro View Post
So as far as I understand, if the device isn't provisionable and your employer wants you to lock your phone to be able to sync with MfE (aka requiring the provisionalbe device), you're out of luck - no MfE for you?
Currently, yes. With one minor addition - your employer has to explicitly state (in MS Exchange Server configuration) that non-provisioning devices are NOT supported.

And it was delibrate decision to leave it out.. because you don't like it personally?
No. I am not the guy who makes the decisions about the features which have to be in the product. I can give ideas for them, of course. And usually they are heard. But I am not allowed to make business decisions of such kind, as you can guess.

Or you're just not willing to make it issue because you don't like it personally, unless we find some other way to tell Nokia that it's important?
1. I am not willing to make it (full provisioning support) because it will mean end of deal for me as an end-user - I will not use the MfE with my corporate account anymore. And it will decrease my productivity.
2. I will do it if I would be commanded to do it. This is my job to execute business decisions at the end of the day. My personal feelings shall stay aside. But don't expect me to support the idea of creating the software which I will not be able to use. Fair enough?

One might imagine that if your employer requires this setting, it's because it's corporate policy to require that the device is locked if you sync it with MfE (at least this is how it is where I work). This kind of is logical: I doubt that many corporations would like that stolen/forgotten handset gives easy access to mail. If you don't like it and don't want to go along with the policies, then you don't have to sync your device.
This is logical and I have never told that I do not understand the companies which request this. I don't like this feature so much that this is a deal breaker for me as an end-user, this is what I have told. If I have no ability to turn full provisioning off, I will not use the Mfe. That's all. And again, this have no influence on my responsibility on delivery the feature. If I am commanded to do it, I will do it.

Another point. Simple enabling of autolock in the device in fact provides wrong feeling for the employer that the data which is stored in the device is secure and can not be read by 3-party. This is simply not truth. Expert still can (and quite easily) access the data which is stored in the flash. This is not a problem unless the flash is not encrypted.

Am I missing some basic understanding about how MfE works, aka this support for provisionable devices just some extra feature that shouldn't be there? If not, the it would be completely reasonable to expect that it would work as advertised.
The only technical comment I have is that this is not a small workload to fully support provisioning.
Last edited by vitaly_repin; 2009-11-30 at 09:16. Reason: Added paragraph about wrong understanding of security
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to vitaly_repin For This Useful Post:
fouro is offline fouro
2009-11-30 , 10:21
Posts: 36 | Thanked: 22 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki
#154
Originally Posted by vitalin_repin
1. I am not willing to make it (full provisioning support) because it will mean end of deal for me as an end-user - I will not use the MfE with my corporate account anymore. And it will decrease my productivity.
And for me, as an end user (and customer), the lack of that feature will mean I can't even use it, wanted or not. And apparently I'm not the only one.

Originally Posted by vitaly_repin
2. I will do it if I would be commanded to do it. This is my job to execute business decisions at the end of the day. My personal feelings shall stay aside. But don't expect me to support the idea of creating the software which I will not be able to use. Fair enough?
I would think that as employee for Nokia you could still deliver the feedback for people who make the decisions since you're taking part in the conversation?

But thanks for the reply. I'll have to find a way to give feedback directly to Nokia through some other route.
Last edited by fouro; 2009-11-30 at 10:29.
 
ewan's Avatar
ewan is offline ewan
2009-11-30 , 10:45
Posts: 445 | Thanked: 572 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Oxford
#155
Would it be possible to simply make the device lie about the support to the server? It seems to me that the ideal behaviour for the user would be to promise Exchange anything it asks for, then just do what the user tells it regardless.
 
jsa is offline jsa
2009-11-30 , 10:51
Posts: 289 | Thanked: 560 times | Joined on May 2009 @ Tampere, Finland
#156
Originally Posted by ewan View Post
Would it be possible to simply make the device lie about the support to the server? It seems to me that the ideal behaviour for the user would be to promise Exchange anything it asks for, then just do what the user tells it regardless.
Originally Posted by vitaly_repin View Post
Without implementation of provisioning feature - no. It definately will not tell to Exchange server that it is provisionable if it is not. This is simply illegal.
From earlier..
 

The Following User Says Thank You to jsa For This Useful Post:
ewan's Avatar
ewan is offline ewan
2009-11-30 , 10:56
Posts: 445 | Thanked: 572 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Oxford
#157
Ah, missed that. It's clearly not true to say that it's 'illegal' though. Not compliant with the spec, maybe, but not illegal.
 
vitaly_repin's Avatar
vitaly_repin is offline vitaly_repin
2009-11-30 , 11:07
Posts: 320 | Thanked: 763 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Espoo, FInland
#158
Originally Posted by fouro View Post
And for me, as an end user (and customer), the lack of that feature will mean I can't even use it, wanted or not. And apparently I'm not the only one.
Yes. This is absolutely clear. As well as I am also not the only user (yes, I am speaking as as user now!) who does not want to use the device which can be wiped by system administrator. So, there are 2 groups of users with contradiction requirements.

In fact I even can suggest the proper solution for this. To support provisioning feature and to let the end-user to turn it off (make the device non-provisionable). If the user works for a company which prohibits the usage of non-provisionable devices, he/she will be unhappy but he/she shall blame the employer in this case, not device manufacturer.

Does it sound reasonable for you?

I would think that as employee for Nokia you could still deliver the feedback for people who make the decisions since you're taking part in the conversation?
Sure.

But thanks for the reply. I'll have to find a way to give feedback directly to Nokia through some other route.
Thank you.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to vitaly_repin For This Useful Post:
fouro is offline fouro
2009-11-30 , 11:29
Posts: 36 | Thanked: 22 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Helsinki
#159
Just as a thought... Would it be (if the decision would be made to work with this, naturally) possible to make the upgrade that would make the device provisionable optional, so user can decide if he/she wants this feature?

Or would it be too much hassle to create it this way (aka might require two different lines for MfE for updates etc). This naturally would bring the best of both worlds and let user to decide it.
 
marekl is offline marekl
2009-11-30 , 15:24
Posts: 9 | Thanked: 5 times | Joined on Nov 2009
#160
Maybe I missed the information, but when the update fixing Exchange 2003 could be available? Thank you.
 
Reply
Page 16 of 158 « First 61415 16 171826 Last »

Tags
activesync, certificate, email, exchange, fremantle, ignore tex14, maemo 5, mail for exchange, mfe, n900, provisioning, sync, thanks vitaly!

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:19.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top