Rich Exchange Server Functionality - A Moot Point?

[Jason Dunn]

One of the things we saw and heard a lot about at the MVP Summit was Exchange 2003 server (code-named Titanium). There are some supremely cool features coming, many of them tying into the Pocket PC. The best Pocket PC experience has always been when linked up with an Exchange server. Microsoft's Mobile Information Server has some great technologies built in, allowing server-sync and rich folder functionality. For Microsoft employees, the Pocket PC is a powerful tool for email.<br /><br />The problem is, not everyone has an Exchange server. Microsoft builds in functionality on the assumption that everyone has access to one! I work with quite a few small businesses and individuals who can't afford the licensing, hardware, and upkeep costs of an Exchange server. There are third-party Exchange hosting services, but many are cost-prohibitive. Email is done through POP3, period. I fall into the same category - I don't have the expertise to manage my own personal Exchange server, so my email experience is nowhere near as powerful as the people at Microsoft. It's a consistant frustration when we hear about new features coming to the Pocket PC and we find out it's an Exchange-only improvement.<br /><br />So it's survey time! Where do the rest of you stand?

[ledowning]

I voted in the survey that our company uses Exchange server, however out IT department has not implemented any of the features required to synch e-mail with the server for the PocketPC. I think that may be the case in a lot of companies. Although IT says they will support the PocketPC for deskside synchronization, they have yet to implement Microsoft mobile information server for wide spread support.

[markan]

I'd second that. Quite a few of our staff have PocketPC but our IT aren't planning to let us do anything more than synchronise with Outlook locally.

[that_kid]

I'm using exchange 2000 here and love it. While I love all the new features which are put in the next version of exchange, I don't know if my budget will allow for an upgrade. So while it looks great, it will take a a while for me to justify upgrading.

[Ed Hansberry]

The Pocket PC experience on Exchange is a pain for IT departments for Exchange 2000. It requires Mobile Info Server and a separate box to run on - you can't run E2K and MIS on the same server. :( This is why I don't have MIS here - can't afford the hardware.

Exchange 2003 though integrates this and it is supposed to be as simple as enabling a check box in E2K3, much like enabling Outlook Web Access on E2K.

The answer for home users is of course to just set up your own personal Exchange server! :wink:

[JonnoB]

While it isn't as easy as using a Word Processor, installing Exchange Server on my home server which is also running IIS was not that hard. I only needed to get a few static IP addresses from my ISP and I was done. If you can afford it, get the Universal MSDN subscription which includes all of this producivity software.

[ThomasC22]

I fall into the same category - I don't have the expertise to manage my own personal Exchange server, so my email experience is nowhere near as powerful as the people at Microsoft.

I think you're either underestimating yourself or overestimating Exchange because (like Jonno said above) it really isn't that hard to do. As for the cost, I think it was something like $700 which isn't really THAT bad.

It's not so much that I'm disagreeing(you certainly shouldn't have to run a personal exchange server to get the most out of your PPC), I think what microsoft is going to have to do is push (and maybe to some extent subsidize) those offering exchange clients to individuals to lower their prices while at the same time encourage other ISPs to use Exchange Server and offer straight exchange clients in addition to SMTP/POP3 (sort of embrace and extend for your email).

Bottom line: drop the individual client license charge!

[axe]

Hi all
Our IT dept (of which I am part) is working toward installing Exchange. However, with regards to supporting PPC I came across this article in PocketPCMag:
http://www.pocketpcmag.com/Nov02/e_directions.asp

This seems to indicate Exchange has a problem working with PPCs... Above it was mentioned PPCs were designed and worked most efficiently with Exchange. Which is it? The article I am quoting says that PI doesn't have a native MAPI client...
Unfortunately, while I am in the group doing the implementing, I will not really know a whole lot about Exchange's configuration until it is working, since it isn't my job-focus.
I would like to influence my teammates to install something that I (and the rest of the PPC-based users in the company) can use without much trouble.
For the record, we have IMAP & POP3 servers serving up our mail now, and since I don't like how ActiveSync syncs the Outlook Inbox, I have configured a link to our IMAP server on my PPC. Based on the link above, I will be pushing toward retaining the IMAP service on the new Exchange server unless someone can help sway my decision.

thoughts?
AXE

[jmulder]

While it isn't as easy as using a Word Processor, installing Exchange Server on my home server which is also running IIS was not that hard. I only needed to get a few static IP addresses from my ISP and I was done. If you can afford it, get the Universal MSDN subscription which includes all of this producivity software.

I don't want to be the license police here, but I think the server licenses included with MSDN are 'for testing only', meaning you shouldn't be using them for 'production'. It's a bit of a gray area, but you know that any gray area would go to the side with the more expensive lawyers. Not that I think MS would come after you as an individual...

A wiser (and actually cheaper) choice is to go with small business server. SBS includes Win2K server, ISA (firewall) server, SQL server and Exchange server for about $1400, including 5 Client Access Licenses (CALs). True, you don't get all the development stuff and updates, but you avoid the gray area in licensing.

I don't want to hijack the thread, just wanted to point out the potential issues...

-Jim

[Ed Hansberry]

Hi all
Our IT dept (of which I am part) is working toward installing Exchange. However, with regards to supporting PPC I came across this article in PocketPCMag:
http://www.pocketpcmag.com/Nov02/e_directions.asp

This seems to indicate Exchange has a problem working with PPCs... Above it was mentioned PPCs were designed and worked most efficiently with Exchange. Which is it? The article I am quoting says that PI doesn't have a native MAPI client...
Either the article is wrong or is talking about Exchange 5.5. OWA in 2000 works just fine on a Pocket PC as does native IMAP support. No addins needed at all. To enable the Server Sync, you do need to buy MIS - a component E2003 comes with.

The PPC doesn't have native MAPI, but with IMAP you really don't need it for email, and with the MIS server or MIS component you definitely don't. It is very efficient over low bandwidth connections - something MAPI isn't.

[bdegroodt]

...The best Pocket PC experience has always been when linked up with an Exchange server. Microsoft's Mobile Information Server has some great technologies built in, allowing server-sync and rich folder functionality. For Microsoft employees, the Pocket PC is a powerful tool for email.
Ummm...For those of us that have access, but don't use it, can you give us a point or 2 on how the experience is better than pulling POP email? Maybe I'll use it as a reason to actually reroute the email records here.

Also, I proposed this before, but I'm still unclear on if this would work. For the Mac users out there, wouldn't synching to Exchange Server eliminate the whole issue of sync on a Mac? You could use the Exchange client on Mac (And apparently Entourage soon.) and with the exception of software installations (.exe files) have a pretty similar experience on the PPC as a PC user. :?:

[seanturner]

Well, I'm runnning my iPaq with the Exchange 2003 Beta server and haven't really used the direct sync features (mainly because I haven't had the time to research and test it). But, I have been using the new Outlook Mobile Access as opposed to Outlook Web Access on my PocketPC. It is a really neat feature giving me access to an entirely text base interface on which I can read my email, tasks, contacts, and appointments from a quickly loading and easy to scroll interface. It's been quite helpfull...

[Janak Parekh]

The problem for very small organizations is not Exchange itself, which with 2000 is a snap to install, but rather the domain controller overhead, and more importantly, the overhead necessary for MIS. Mobile Information Server is not nearly simple as Exchange. Our sysadmin spent hours on the phone with MS because the MIS install is not really well-documented. For example, how do you set up secure (i.e. SSL) OMA?

--janak

[seanturner]

For example, how do you set up secure (i.e. SSL) OWA via WAP?

--janak

Just setup an certificate server and then have the default website request a certificate. Then, go to https://www.exchangeSERVERaddress.com/exchange

You don't even need MIS to do that. The only problem is its not that PPC friendly of a format. But, you can get to that OMA in Ex 2003 over an SSL connection which works quite well for me.

[Ed Hansberry]

...The best Pocket PC experience has always been when linked up with an Exchange server. Microsoft's Mobile Information Server has some great technologies built in, allowing server-sync and rich folder functionality. For Microsoft employees, the Pocket PC is a powerful tool for email.
Ummm...For those of us that have access, but don't use it, can you give us a point or 2 on how the experience is better than pulling POP email? Maybe I'll use it as a reason to actually reroute the email records here.

Huge benefits on email. When you hit REPLY to an ActiveSync Server email, you get a little blurb that says "[Message will be reattached at the server]" or similar. So you only send your comments. The server takes your comments and appends the quoted text and the recepient sees exactly what he expects - the full thread. The syncing of contacts and appointments is also far more efficient than what ActiveSync on the desktop does. SInce that is via USB, it doesn't really care about saving a few hundred bytes here and there for bandwidth. ActiveSync Server does though. I really look forward to E2K3 shipping so I can try this functionality out for myself on a daily basis.

[that_kid]

Hmm....maybe I should install exsrv2k3 in the lab and give it a go. I tried doing exchange2k and MIS but that ended up a mess. Most of the pda users in my family have pocketpc's(i'm working on the palm users :wink: ) so theres a chance they will want to go with exchange 2k3.

[Janak Parekh]

You don't even need MIS to do that. The only problem is its not that PPC friendly of a format. But, you can get to that OMA in Ex 2003 over an SSL connection which works quite well for me.
Unfortunately, it didn't work for us with OMA with MIS + Ex2k. MS Tech Support said it wasn't supported. And that was it. :(

We're definitely looking forward to Ex2k3. :)

--janak

[pjerry220]

I am a Lotus Notes administrator at my shop. We use a 3rd party app to synchronize the PocketPC device. I have never been a fan of exchange because of the virus issues that occur. :lol:

[bdegroodt]

I am a Lotus Notes administrator at my shop. We use a 3rd party app to synchronize the PocketPC device. I have never been a fan of exchange because of the virus issues that occur. :lol:

On that note, has anyone used Oracle's Collaboration Suite with the PPC? Oracle pitches a very robust suite for a dirt cheap price per seat. And of course you can still use Outlook as your desktop client.

[Ed Hansberry]

You don't even need MIS to do that. The only problem is its not that PPC friendly of a format. But, you can get to that OMA in Ex 2003 over an SSL connection which works quite well for me.
Unfortunately, it didn't work for us with OMA with MIS + Ex2k. MS Tech Support said it wasn't supported. And that was it. :(

We're definitely looking forward to Ex2k3. :)

--janak
OMA? Do you mean OWA? I use OWA with E2K. It will get worse on E2003 though. It has at least verticle frames - looks cool in IE6 on a big desktop. Unmanagable on a PPC screen.

[Will T Smith]

I believe that this topic naturally leads to a whole in Microsoft's product line. Microsoft has tons of options for enterprise. However, they have few options for home users wishing to manage their families computing environment.

The most obvious example is authentication, it would be great to have a "home server" that would perform authentication and allow other computers to use it for that purpose.

Email, file services, print services, usage policies (bobby can't use his computer after 10pm), monitoring for unusual amounts of disk usage (lot of .jpg files, etc...), and even keeping group schedules that can be synchronized to various devices like smartphones and PDAs.

Such a product would be very useful and would ideally be priced the same as WinXP professional.

[seanturner]

You don't even need MIS to do that. The only problem is its not that PPC friendly of a format. But, you can get to that OMA in Ex 2003 over an SSL connection which works quite well for me.
Unfortunately, it didn't work for us with OMA with MIS + Ex2k. MS Tech Support said it wasn't supported. And that was it. :(

We're definitely looking forward to Ex2k3. :)

--janak
OMA? Do you mean OWA? I use OWA with E2K. It will get worse on E2003 though. It has at least verticle frames - looks cool in IE6 on a big desktop. Unmanagable on a PPC screen.

OMA=Outlook Mobile Access. As in the text based page.

OWA is fine on both actually. It has a simplified version which does load without a problem on the PPC (although it isn't the best formating in the world, it isn't any worse than E2K.)

[Janak Parekh]

OMA? Do you mean OWA? I use OWA with E2K. It will get worse on E2003 though. It has at least verticle frames - looks cool in IE6 on a big desktop. Unmanagable on a PPC screen.
Nah, I did mean OMA (Outlook Mobile Access, the WAP portal enabled by MIS) the first time too. I'll edit that post, just couldn't remember the acronym.

The most obvious example is authentication, it would be great to have a "home server" that would perform authentication and allow other computers to use it for that purpose.
I believe in Microsoft's opinion, Passport is/was the solution for this. Wasn't there that controversial component in the .NET focus that tied Passport into everything? I can't remember its name now.

--janak

[bbarker]

Back to the original question...

As small business owners we need to get full use from our Pocket PCs without installing and managing an Exchange server. We need Microsoft to provide full value to very small businesses, not just to large enterprises.

I'm a partner in a small consulting company (not technology consulting for the most part). A couple of us have Pocket PCs, another has a Palm. We don't have an IT staff, or hardly any staff at all. We have a network consultant who sets up and configures everything and comes when there's a problem I can't solve.

Most of the time I am the technology resource, but I can't afford to spend much time playing with IT stuff when I need to be generating clients or serving them. I can't bill for time I spend playing with servers.

Currently we don't have an Exchange server. In fact, we don't have any server; we run a peer-to-peer network under Windows XP. Eventually we may get a Small Business Server, including Exchange, but I don't know when, or even for sure if. We would have to justify the cost, which comes out of our own pockets.

That's the point. As consultants in a very small business, everything we add to overhead costs comes out of our personal bottom line. If we can see a cost as an investment that will help generate income or reduce expenses, we can justify it. But our POP3 email is working fine for now.

[ThomasC22]

Back to the original question...


Hey, don't be shy, tell us how you really feel :lol:

Seriously, a few points:

1 - I still think even a small business should consider Exchange. At roughly $700 + $60 per client it isn't that expensive (although don't get me started on the logic of making me pay for Windows 2000 + Exchange 2000 + Outlook to connect to Exchange + An Exchange client License + A Windows OS + a Windows Client License). Plus the TCO is really pretty low.

2 - I think it mischaracterizes a little to say that Microsoft is "crippling" your PocketPC. Your PocketPC still does everything you were told it could do when you bought it, it could just be enhanced by Exchange Server.

3 - Having said #2, I will say that for PP2K2PE it would be nice if there was a forwarding client for outlook simply because most home users don't have Exchange.

[bbarker]

1 - I still think even a small business should consider Exchange. At roughly $700 + $60 per client it isn't that expensive (although don't get me started on the logic of making me pay for Windows 2000 + Exchange 2000 + Outlook to connect to Exchange + An Exchange client License + A Windows OS + a Windows Client License). Plus the TCO is really pretty low.
It isn't really that expensive, except that it comes out of our pockets as small business owners. POP3 is working for us. I've been in Exchange environments and they're great, but I don't know of sufficient advantages to make it worthwhile for us so far.
2 - I think it mischaracterizes a little to say that Microsoft is "crippling" your PocketPC. Your PocketPC still does everything you were told it could do when you bought it, it could just be enhanced by Exchange Server.
True.
3 - Having said #2, I will say that for PP2K2PE it would be nice if there was a forwarding client for outlook simply because most home users don't have Exchange.
I'm not sure what PP2K2PE means.

[Ed Hansberry]

1 - I still think even a small business should consider Exchange. At roughly $700 + $60 per client it isn't that expensive (although don't get me started on the logic of making me pay for Windows 2000 + Exchange 2000 + Outlook to connect to Exchange + An Exchange client License + A Windows OS + a Windows Client License). Plus the TCO is really pretty low.
It isn't really that expensive, except that it comes out of our pockets as small business owners. POP3 is working for us. I've been in Exchange environments and they're great, but I don't know of sufficient advantages to make it worthwhile for us so far.
Comparing Exchange to a POP3 server just because both do email is like comparing Windows to DOS just because both manage your file system. Exchange supports POP, but it also supports public folders, collaboration, shared calanders, scheduling, message tracking, task assignment and much more.

Sounds like Small Business Server is what you need. It is $1,400 at Buy.com with 5 client licenses and 5 additional are $289 each. That is full Windows 2000 Server, Exchange 2000, SQL 2000, and other goodies aimed at companies with small needs.

[JMountford]

I have a MSDN Copy of Exchange. I have never bothered to install it.

[Jason Dunn]

Interesting comments guys! I tried installing Exchange once and didn't get very far - I've never set up a "real" server (just IIS), domain controller, and all that jazz, so I just don't have the experience I need. It's not easy if you get stuck on the third dialogue box! :wink:

When Exchange 2003 comes out, I'll try to arrange a series of articles on setting the server up, from beginning to end.

[Janak Parekh]

3 - Having said #2, I will say that for PP2K2PE it would be nice if there was a forwarding client for outlook simply because most home users don't have Exchange.
I'm not sure what PP2K2PE means.
Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition. :)

--janak

[Ed Hansberry]

Interesting comments guys! I tried installing Exchange once and didn't get very far - I've never set up a "real" server (just IIS), domain controller, and all that jazz, so I just don't have the experience I need. It's not easy if you get stuck on the third dialogue box! :wink:
E2K on a Windows 2000 Server DC fresh should not be too difficult. I don't know if it is possible otherwise. You should check out www.slipstick.com - they are the Exchange resource.

On OMA - Ok, I give up. Exchange gurus - where do I configure this?

[Ethan]

Those of you have Outlook Web Access, but not access to the Mobile Information Server, can still access all Outlook data on your PDA through Thunderhawk. Works fine for me - I can get read/respond to emails, check my schedule, etc. on my Ipaq, either via WiFi to a hotspot, or Bluetooth to my cellphone.

http://www.bitstream.com/wireless/

This circumvents the problems that PIE has with OWA - mainly, support for popups which is needed.

[seanturner]

On OMA - Ok, I give up. Exchange gurus - where do I configure this?

There is a bunch of documentation on it and the other wireless features here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/d/f/edfdeb7f-289d-4e1b-8f2e-663b8dea68db/etb2gsg_pdf.exe

[sweetpete]

On OMA - Ok, I give up. Exchange gurus - where do I configure this?

In Exchange 2003 you need to go to the System Manager -> Global Settings -> Wireless Services properties

In the general tab you can control both Server Side Activesync ("Wireless Synchronization") or OMA ("Wireless Browse"). The picture should help

http://members.shaw.ca/sweet.pete/oma-small.png

[sweetpete]

This circumvents the problems that PIE has with OWA - mainly, support for popups which is needed.

PIE has no problems supporting both OWA in Exchange 2000 and 2003. Exchange does not open emails as popups when accessed with PIE.

[seanturner]

This circumvents the problems that PIE has with OWA - mainly, support for popups which is needed.

PIE has no problems supporting both OWA in Exchange 2000 and 2003. Exchange does not open emails as popups when accessed with PIE.

In fact, OWA detects what kind of browser it's running on and adjusts accordingly. Try opening it on Opera or some other Non-IE browser to see the version the PPC opens.

[sweetpete]

I'm not sure what PP2K2PE means.

I believe he is using that acronym to refer to Pocket PC 2002 Phone Edition which has wireless data built-in ... therefore the request for some sort of POP forwarding client

[Ed Hansberry]

On OMA - Ok, I give up. Exchange gurus - where do I configure this?

There is a bunch of documentation on it and the other wireless features here: http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/d/f/edfdeb7f-289d-4e1b-8f2e-663b8dea68db/etb2gsg_pdf.exe

That is for 03. I was talking about OMA in 2000. Does that even exist?

[seanturner]

That is for 03. I was talking about OMA in 2000. Does that even exist?

No, unfortunately not. It's a new feature included in Ex 2003. You just have OWA in 2000.

[sweetpete]

That is for 03. I was talking about OMA in 2000. Does that even exist?

No, unfortunately not. It's a new feature included in Ex 2003. You just have OWA in 2000.

Actually MIS 2002 was an add-on that provided both OMA and Server-side activesync for Exchange 2000. This was a separate product before, but will be incorporated into Exchange 2003. On the other hand, Microsoft is removing real-time collaboration (aka. Messenger) out of Exchange and including that as part of their future Enterprise IM product (codename Greenwich).

Ooops ... forgot the URL I was going to post http://microsoft.com/miserver/

[Ed Hansberry]

Actually MIS 2002 was an add-on that provided both OMA and Server-side activesync for Exchange 2000. This was a separate product before, but will be incorporated into Exchange 2003. On the other hand, Microsoft is removing real-time collaboration (aka. Messenger) out of Exchange and including that as part of their future Enterprise IM product (codename Greenwich).

Ooops ... forgot the URL I was going to post http://microsoft.com/miserver/
No, it wasn't an addon unfortunately, it was a partner product and had to be installed in its own Win2K server - not one with E2K on it. :? That's why I don't have it - I don't have the extra hardware, and I don't want it on my Terminal Server or SQL Server since those are mission critical boxes.

[Ethan]

This circumvents the problems that PIE has with OWA - mainly, support for popups which is needed.

PIE has no problems supporting both OWA in Exchange 2000 and 2003. Exchange does not open emails as popups when accessed with PIE.

In fact, OWA detects what kind of browser it's running on and adjusts accordingly. Try opening it on Opera or some other Non-IE browser to see the version the PPC opens.

Very true. Unfortunately my office uses Exchange 5.5 which doesn't appear to support OWA. So for those in my position Thunderhawk is your only solution.

[Ed Hansberry]

Very true. Unfortunately my office uses Exchange 5.5 which doesn't appear to support OWA. So for those in my position Thunderhawk is your only solution.
That is an addon. E5.5 didn't ship with it but you could download IIS 2 (or 3 or whatever it was that ran on NT4) and then get the OWA kit.

[Ethan]

Very true. Unfortunately my office uses Exchange 5.5 which doesn't appear to support OWA. So for those in my position Thunderhawk is your only solution.
That is an addon. E5.5 didn't ship with it but you could download IIS 2 (or 3 or whatever it was that ran on NT4) and then get the OWA kit.

Sorry to confuse the issue. OWA IS running on my setup here - but it DOESN'T support Pocket PCs. Seems like only 2000 and newer have the ability to recognize a PocketPC and serve emails without a popup. Thus, I've been using Thunderhawk to get around the problem. However is there a way to get Exchange 5.5 (with OWA) to stop relying on popups to serve emails?

[Ed Hansberry]

Sorry to confuse the issue. OWA IS running on my setup here - but it DOESN'T support Pocket PCs. Seems like only 2000 and newer have the ability to recognize a PocketPC and serve emails without a popup. Thus, I've been using Thunderhawk to get around the problem. However is there a way to get Exchange 5.5 (with OWA) to stop relying on popups to serve emails?

Yes - get the addon at http://www.microsoft.com/mobile/handheldpc/downloads/mailclient/mailclient.asp that will put it into a simple page with no frames or popups.

[Janak Parekh]

Interesting comments guys! I tried installing Exchange once and didn't get very far - I've never set up a "real" server (just IIS), domain controller, and all that jazz, so I just don't have the experience I need. It's not easy if you get stuck on the third dialogue box! :wink:
Exchange needs Active Directory, so if you don't have a domain controller, you would have gotten stuck sooner or later. ;)

Really, though, Exch 2k is a walk in the park compared to 5.5. In 5.5, you had to configure SMTP transports semi-manually, and the user management was not integrated into the NT domain (except for a kludgy "oh, I see you're creating a user; want to create a mailbox too?") Its only problem is that sometimes it's too integrated into the Active Directory tools.

--janak

[sweetpete]

Actually MIS 2002 was an add-on that provided both OMA and Server-side activesync for Exchange 2000. This was a separate product before, but will be incorporated into Exchange 2003. On the other hand, Microsoft is removing real-time collaboration (aka. Messenger) out of Exchange and including that as part of their future Enterprise IM product (codename Greenwich).

Ooops ... forgot the URL I was going to post http://microsoft.com/miserver/
No, it wasn't an addon unfortunately, it was a partner product and had to be installed in its own Win2K server - not one with E2K on it. :? That's why I don't have it - I don't have the extra hardware, and I don't want it on my Terminal Server or SQL Server since those are mission critical boxes.

Sorry, bad use of terminology. It is it's own server product as the link I posted details.

[sweetpete]

You don't even need MIS to do that. The only problem is its not that PPC friendly of a format. But, you can get to that OMA in Ex 2003 over an SSL connection which works quite well for me.
Unfortunately, it didn't work for us with OMA with MIS + Ex2k. MS Tech Support said it wasn't supported. And that was it. :(

We're definitely looking forward to Ex2k3. :)

--janak

Was this MIS 2001 or 2002? I'm pretty sure when we tested 2002 we configured it with a browser SSL cert ... in fact I checked the docs:

Installing an SSL certificate for browse and synchronization traffic

Browse and synchronization traffic can be secured with SSL on your MIS server. If you use SSL to secure browse and synchronization traffic, you must install an SSL certificate on your MIS servers. For synchronization, the certificate must be from a CA that is recognized by Pocket PC 2002 devices. Pocket PC 2002 devices trust most popular CAs. If you deploy your own certificates, users will not be able to synchronize.

[Janak Parekh]

Was this MIS 2001 or 2002? I'm pretty sure when we tested 2002 we configured it with a browser SSL cert ... in fact I checked the docs
It was 2002. Only OMA over WAP, mind you -- the Pocket PC is apparently supported via SSL. At least that's what the tech told our sysadmin. I was skeptical of their answer, but haven't had time to look further into it.

--janak

[seanturner]

Was this MIS 2001 or 2002? I'm pretty sure when we tested 2002 we configured it with a browser SSL cert ... in fact I checked the docs
It was 2002. Only OMA over WAP, mind you -- the Pocket PC is apparently supported via SSL. At least that's what the tech told our sysadmin. I was skeptical of their answer, but haven't had time to look further into it.

--janak

Well, in E2K3 at least, OMA and OWA both work over a non-wap connection and with SSL on the PocketPC.

[sweetpete]

Was this MIS 2001 or 2002? I'm pretty sure when we tested 2002 we configured it with a browser SSL cert ... in fact I checked the docs
It was 2002. Only OMA over WAP, mind you -- the Pocket PC is apparently supported via SSL. At least that's what the tech told our sysadmin. I was skeptical of their answer, but haven't had time to look further into it.

--janak

Well, in E2K3 at least, OMA and OWA both work over a non-wap connection and with SSL on the PocketPC.

You can even do Server Activesync with SSL as long as your cert was issues by a recognized root CA (like Verisign) but that was there with MIS as well.