On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 10:14:38PM +0100, André Schild wrote: > >>the licensing agreement doesn't make me a happy, happy, joy man. > >Is z-push that much different of a threat than the Open^H^H^H^Hchange- > >replacement you seem to be doing in v2.0 ? > OpenChange has nothing to do with ActiveSync. > > OpenChange implements MAPI on the server, so (all) mapi compatible > can talk to the server > z-Push implements ActiveSync on the server, so all active sync > clients can talk to the server
I see it as: z-push implements microsofts proprietary ActiveSync protocol. OpenChange implements microsofts proprietary MAPI protocol. > The current z-push sogo backend uses CalDav/CardDav to access Sogo > resources, > the Funambol client directly accesses the database Yes, I know. I tested the sogosync-version about a year ago, and it looked like a very nice solution that could be run as a completely separate service from the rest of sogo (pure caldav/carddav/imap-client). Funambol looked like a very intrusive solution, poking inside the sogo database directly, having it's own userdatabase (if I remember correctly). And probably introducing version dependencies between funambol server and sogo server. I'd much rather push my users towards installing a 3. party caldav/carddav client, and avoid the need for anything serverside. -jf -- [email protected] https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
