Mac Users...
-
Because ... Apple is going to probably come up.
-
@BBigford said:
I have a user who is... Difficult. They refuse to use Outlook and instead use Apple Mail. Not to get into things, but signatures, attachments, rich content, etc, do not process in Exchange very well.
The question is, I know Office in Windows is programmed in C++, I'm guessing Apple Mail is in Objective-C... What about Office for Mac? Is it in Perl, Objective-C,
Office for Mac is C++, objective-c and swift. Apple Mail is likely fully in swift
-
The more likely issue is either the Apple implementation of ActiveSync if using that, or SMTP/POP3/iMAP if the user is using that.
-
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
-
@Dashrender said:
The more likely issue is either the Apple implementation of ActiveSync if using that, or SMTP/POP3/iMAP if the user is using that.
I haven't seen many issues with Apple Mail and exchange, granted I haven't used it much.
Also it maybe be because Apple mail is using ActiveSync like a phone would. Outlook does not use activesync aside from outlook.com for exchange itself it uses an exchange connection.
-
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
We let them use it if they have a mac but, we don't support it. If they complain that's their own fault.
-
@Jason said:
Not sure why you think it's related to programing language. It's just how the applications are designed, it's in no way related to the programing language.
I thought it might be related because of how the application gets handled. Shitty programming might get handled differently on Exchange I figured.
I'm just trying to generate as much info as possible so I can do research. For instance, if Microsoft posted an article "Apple Mail is programmed in Swift. Inline attachments will be handled as htm documents and rich text thereafter." That would be something I could explain.
If that isn't the case, that's fine. That's why I'm asking the community. I just wasn't going to make any assumptions either way.
"It's just how the applications are designed". Can you explain that a little further please?
-
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
-
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
Why would this even involve the CEO..
-
The ironic part was this was generated because she sent a company wide email telling people to use the right signature format... Her email didn't have the signature formatted correctly because of that.
-
@Jason said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
Why would this even involve the CEO..
Because she is a favorite and complains to higher ups.
-
@BBigford said:
@Jason said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
Why would this even involve the CEO..
Because she is a favorite and complains to higher ups.
So? Management should stop that shit. That's going out of chain of command and escalating things that don't need to be. Everyone here gets the same treatment. From the maintenance guy to the CEO.
-
@BBigford said:
I thought it might be related because of how the application gets handled. Shitty programming might get handled differently on Exchange I figured.
It interfaces at the protocol. The language and implementation are totally hidden. It's like saying you would not understand words from one typewriter versus another. But no matter how nice and crappy a typewriter is, it doesn't change the words around.
-
@BBigford said:
I'm just trying to generate as much info as possible so I can do research. For instance, if Microsoft posted an article "Apple Mail is programmed in Swift. Inline attachments will be handled as htm documents and rich text thereafter." That would be something I could explain.
Languages don't impose limitations like that. All programming languages can do all things.
-
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
Why not explain that Apple Mail just doesn't work properly?
-
@Jason said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
Why would this even involve the CEO..
If I were NetworkNerd I'd say something very vulgar right now.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
Why does this user get to dictate what they use for email access?
They are a favorite from higher ups. So I have to explain to the CEO why Exchange handles that scenario that way. I haven't come up with anything yet...
Why not explain that Apple Mail just doesn't work properly?
It really should be as simple as that. Apple Mail does not work properly with Exchange - I can't explain why because I can't see into the communication stacks well enough to explain it, but the evidence is apparent. Oh and the solution is for the user to use another compatible email client. lol
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I thought it might be related because of how the application gets handled. Shitty programming might get handled differently on Exchange I figured.
It interfaces at the protocol. The language and implementation are totally hidden. It's like saying you would not understand words from one typewriter versus another. But no matter how nice and crappy a typewriter is, it doesn't change the words around.
Makes sense. Thanks. If you had to come up with one logical guess, what would that be? It should be as simple as it doesn't work properly, but I need something. :l
-
@BBigford said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@BBigford said:
I thought it might be related because of how the application gets handled. Shitty programming might get handled differently on Exchange I figured.
It interfaces at the protocol. The language and implementation are totally hidden. It's like saying you would not understand words from one typewriter versus another. But no matter how nice and crappy a typewriter is, it doesn't change the words around.
Makes sense. Thanks. If you had to come up with one logical guess, what would that be? It should be as simple as it doesn't work properly, but I need something. :l
Nope, it simply doesn't work properly. There isn't another answer. Whatever format it sends to Exchange isn't correct. It's an Exchange protocol and it works for everyone else, so we know that the issue is that Apple Mail simply sends garbage to Exchange. Garbage in, garbage out.
The messed up format that you see IS what Apple Mail is sending. That's all the more there is to it.
-
If you need a good analogy to use, try this...
You have an English speaker and hundreds of French speakers. You have decided that the lingua Franca (ha ha) in the office is French. Whenever the English speaker tries to speak French, he tends to say the right words but pronounce them wrong or get them in the wrong order - he just doesn't quite know French completely.
Now the manager keeps asking the French speakers why the English speaker keeps getting it wrong.
There is no answer other than... he doesn't speak French fluently and gets it wrong.
Apple Mail is getting the language wrong, not enough for the mail to fail, but enough that it doesn't look right.
