Hello! Let me add David. He was more involved with the activesyncd side of things than I was. David, any comments?
On Sun, 2014-03-23 at 17:51 +0000, Graham Cobb wrote: > I have been trying to get activesync to work with Outlook.com and have > found a number of problems. I have submitted bug reports for each > (76515-76518)), in order to not forget about them, but three of the four > probably require some discussion on the list. > > 1) Outlook.com requires protocol version 14.0. It does not support any > earlier or later protocols. We currently support version 12.1 (which > seems to be supported by most Exchange servers, even those which also > support 14.0 or 14.1). > > The code includes a conditional to select whether we claim to support > 12.1 or 14.0. But it looks like that only really changes what we claim > -- the only case the version seems to be checked is when sending mail > (which we don't use in SyncEvolution). A quick test seems to show that > claiming to be 14.0 allows syncs to work with outlook.com -- but I have > not yet reviewed the differences to see if I can find things which break. > > Assuming that we either don't need to change the operation, or can > easily change it, there is a bigger question of whether to switch to > claiming 14.0. At the moment, there is no attempt to negotiate protocol > version: if we switch to 14.0, servers which only support 12.1 will stop > working. Negotiation would involve some complexity (adding a new > message exchange or re-trying connections with each protocol version) -- > is it worth it? Are there any servers still running which do not > support 14.0? > > 2) Outlook.com does not like NTLM auth. Activesyncd explicitly tells > libsoup to enable NTLM, which causes outlook.com to return an error. > Disabling NTLM allows outlook.com to work, and also works with my work > server (it always requires Basic auth anyway, even when we start by > sending NTLM). > > Apparently autodiscover (which we don't support) is supposed to tell you > whether to use NTLM or Basic. But surely we can't provide valid domain > credentials using NTLM anyway, can we? > > Is there any reason to specify NTLM? > > 3) Outlook.com does redirects, to redirect access to a specific server > based on the username. Should we bother to go to the extra effort to > implement these redirects? Does any other service use them? It is not > clear that the user can find out which server to specify if we don't > implement the redirect. Point 3 seems worthwhile to me. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter. _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
