You may be correct with your guess regarding the licensing situation, if for that reason such a project has to stay outside the base SOGo distribution it will be ok.
My intention was not to grumble about something, I just wanted to bring some attention to this problem. It seems to me that over the last years several trials of implementing ActiveSync have been started by community members, which after some time more or less stopped their experiments (at least correct for my trial some years ago). Good to know that there is even another project as mentioned by Corrado Fiore in this thread, I will give this also a try. Another question is: Have these projects all to be based on z-push? What if hordes ActiveSync interface also could be used as starting point? Or with Openchange: can z-push directly access the MAPI stores as it does when used with zarafa (I can be completely wrong here)? But again it shows the need for better collaboration between ActiveSync interested SOGo users. Best regards, Albrecht Am 03.09.2013 um 14:20 schrieb Martin Rabl <martin.r...@rablnet.de>: > I think, the problem is ActiveSync itself, because it is not a free solution. > We are able to implement it, because of thousand pages of documentation, but > have to license using our implementation by Microsoft - theoretically. > SOGo sets only on free interfaces like CALDAV etc. And it integrates the free > Openchange (which implements the IMHO non-free MAPI from Microsoft). > > Ok, it would be nice to have a built-in ActiveSync solution in SOGo. But IMHO > the better way is to set on third party software, when there are > CALDAV-Interfaces (or SMTP/IMAP ...) available. > > So, PHP-Push2 seems for me the only way for integrating AS with SOGo, but its > not a Inverse project, so they are not responsible for it. > > The problem of PHP-Push is the big "less": > - less developers > - less testing users (!!!) > - less money > > I'm sure, with more developer and more testing users it will do a step > forward making ActiveSync usable. And THAT would be for me a solution - > instead of grumbling to Inverse. > > > Greetings, > Martin > > Am 03.09.13 12:54, schrieb Jan-Frode Myklebust: >> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 10:54:52AM +0200, alge wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure if my situation with ActiveSync beeing a show stopper for >>> deploying SOGo is generalizable enough, what do other people think of >>> it? Did I miss something? >> >> I completely agree (except we didn't let it stop the show). Configuring >> mobile clients without ActiveSync is too cumbersome, and my little >> exposure to z-push didn't convince me it was production ready.. >> >> Is there anything we can do to get Inverse to focus on ActiveSync >> support? Does it need funding? Is it a big difficult feature, or ..? >> >> >> >> -jf >> > > -- > users@sogo.nu > https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists -- users@sogo.nu https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
