> -----Original Message----- > From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 12:32 PM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: synchronizing OWA with OST or PST > > > Well I thought this had died with everyone having made their > points, but > apparently not. I thought that last response to my post was > so off the > point that it only underscored what I had said.
Well isn't that flattering. > > I think this is where systems architects and operations folks > have their > most difficult problems in communicating with each other. It > is ok for an > operations view to be pressed that suggests that given the current > technology using a specific approach is a best practice. > However, that does > not translate into where it is best to take the product. > Agreed. > MAPI is a painful legacy at this point. I don't think anyone > is suggesting > that it should be ported to any other platform, including the > Pocket PC and > Windows CE families. We don't want it, and neither does > Microsoft. That > creates an interesting situation. Should the services in MAPI that go > beyond what is currently in IMAP4 and OWA be extended to > other platforms or > not, and if so, how? > Well of course. Dropping MAPI without providing more functionality would be just silly. > This is where I got bent. There was a rabid non-thinking > defense of the > status quo: a sort of I'm not giving up my MAPI until you > pull my cold dead > fingers from my keyboard" approach. That attitude is not defensible. > About the only technology arguments that I respect less than > those that > start "Linux is best . . ." or "Apple is best . . ." are the > ones that start > "Microsoft is best . . ." Exchange is a superior product > because it is > mostly very pragmatic in its design. When this stops to be true, it's > roadkill, and so are the sys admins that make their living > off of it. I > don't think that is in the best interests of anyone on this list. Well I hope you don't think I feel that way. I tend to be fairly platform-neutral, although I will admit that so far Microsoft has written the best client for Exchange. > > Evolving trends in security systems suggest that the one high > level protocol > that looks like it has the best shot at transiting the > greatest number of > transport links, and being useful for the widest possible number of > non-streaming media applications is http. Similarly, the > well equipped > browser has displaced all other offerings and attempts to > build platform > neutral systems that still work well with market-centric systems (i.e. > Wintel). Interesting perspective, but I don't see the basis for your conclusions. Sure, port 80 is passed by most firewalls, but it is also highly insecure, stateless, and has significant overhead (SSL, of course, still has the latter two problems with even more overhead). Similarly, the "well-equipped browser" has so far failed to replace certain applications - word processors, spreadsheets, and mailtools among them. The average browser does not have facilities built into it which can do local storage or indexing, and these are things that you need. I find it significant that Microsoft has _not_ tried to fold their mailtool into Internet Explorer, instead bundling it as a seperate application (Outlook Express). So I would have to say that both http and Web browsers have too many historical restraints to effectively do what you want. > This can only lead to one conclusion. MAPI clients are not > strategic. They > have at best a limited future. The premier client protocol > for Exchange, if > it is to survive, has to be http. Get over it. Adapt and thrive. > I'd be willing to bet you a dollar that the successor to MAPI will not be http. Microsoft may decide to embrace and extend IMAP, or may design a new protocol from the ground up. And the client will run as a seperate process, not in the browser (unless it's as an ActiveX component). I'd say actually that we are starting to move away from the "run everything in a browser" mentality. I'm finally starting to see some exceptional programming done in Java although of course if you want speed and reliability you still stick with one of the C variants. Browsers are great for applets - I appreciate the capability to interface with a router through one - but in the end are a bit too Procrustean for my tastes. > > -----Original Message----- > From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2002 6:25 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: synchronizing OWA with OST or PST > > > Jumping Jiminey. I guess I am. > > It's just that Dupler fellow. I get all excited. > > -- > be - MOS > > > > "This is Vergon 6." -Professor > "Bah." -Amy > "It's a sunny little doomed planet, inhabited by a number of > frisky little > doomed animals." -Professor > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Soysal, Serdar [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 5:58 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: synchronizing OWA with OST or PST > > > > > > A little behind on your reading Bill? > > > > Serdar Soysal > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: East, Bill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 3:43 PM > > To: Exchange Discussions > > Subject: RE: synchronizing OWA with OST or PST > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Dupler, Craig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 1:33 PM > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: synchronizing OWA with OST or PST > > > > > > > > > Yes, it works well. That was never the point. But, just > > like a MAPI > > > session, you should be able to do a synch while in browse > > mode on OWA. > > > > > I'm puzzled by this approach, Craig. > > > > Let's say you're at an airport kiosk. You're going to > > download the synch > > file, then what? Copy it to a floppy? What if it's more that > > 1.44MB? What if > > the kiosk doesn't have a floppy drive? If you're using a PDA, > > how do you > > transfer the file to there? > > > > OTOH, let's say you're hooked into a WLAN in the Executive > > Lounge from your > > own laptop or PDA. You can then fire up your VPN software, > > connect into your > > LAN and synch using the copy of Outlook on your PC. If you don't use > > Outlook, as many others have pointed out, you can use an > IMAP client. > > > > Synchronization to an OST presumes that you have Outlook > > installed, so why > > re-create the wheel? OWA was built to be run from any browser > > anywhere (I > > can even convince Opera to load it if I work at it), but like > > most Web-based > > services, presumes a connection for the duration of the session. > > > > > > > I don't get it. Why are you guys arguing in favor of keeping > > > a small and > > > extremely useful feature out of the product? Is it a "we're > > > tough, we can > > > take it" sort of thing, or what? > > > > > > > Implementation of this isn't trivial, and there already > exist multiple > > better ways to do what you want. So why would Microsoft spend money > > developing another one? > > > > > Or maybe it is that you've bought into the view that small > > > machines should > > > only be used as companions to "real" machines. > > > > Well, no. If you have an IMAP/MAPI client and a Web browser > > on your handheld > > you're in good shape. But your Web browser sucks as a > > mailtool, so why not > > use the IMAP/MAPI client? > > > > > Sheesh, I > > > thought that > > > attitude died back in the 80's when the mainframe crowd tried > > > to convince > > > everyone that OV, HP Desk and All-In-1 were the "real" > > > workgroup messaging > > > systems, and that LAN mail should be relegated to simple > > departmental > > > messaging only tasks. > > > > > > It's amazing. The PC guys have grown up to become the > > > dinosaurs that they > > > displaced. > > > > > > > I resent that implication. I have not become a PDP/11. > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
