On Wed, 2012-01-25 at 17:37 +0100, André Schild wrote: > Am 25.01.2012 16:20, schrieb Martin Rabl: > > > Am 25.01.2012 15:58, schrieb Martin Lehmann: > > > > > I have also seen this ActiveSync implementation. Maybe it's > > > better > > > than Z-Push? > > > http://www.tine20.org/downloads/2011-05-6/tine20-activesync_2011-05-6.tar.bz2 > > > > > > > Had a quick look over the code - it heavyly depends on tine data > > structures and classes - much effort solve this, I think. > > Then, it would be better to create a sophisticated ;-) sogo plugin > > for z-push which is more independent. > > A general problem for ActiveSync is this one (Taken from the tine20 > website) > http://www.tine20.org/wiki/index.php/Admins/Synchronisation#Patent_warning_for_US-based_users > > > > Patent warning for US-based users > > Don't use our implementation of ActiveSync if you live in the USA. As > Microsoft has a software patent on ActiveSync you can not use our code > free of charge. We are currently in contact with Microsoft to > negotiate a deal for our US-based users. > > Any other users are free to use our ActiveSync implementation. > > This "potential" problem will also have to be considered by a z-push > backend....
hi all, i had proposed a the creation of a bounty in a previous message to accomplish this work (and I guess we'll need to do it Euros -- i'm outside the US anyway ...). i fully agree that activeSync support would be a fantastic addition to sogo. as far as architecture goes, would a mysql backend scale better than *dav? thanks m -- [email protected] https://inverse.ca/sogo/lists
