Motorola MC55

Motorola MC55 SearchSearch
Author Message
morti
New member
Username: Morti

Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2009
Posted on Wednesday, December 02, 2009 - 10:57 pm:   

Hi there,

A Motorola MC55 (Ex-Symbol-Technology) has installed a Windows Mobile 6.1 Operating System and does support the Microsoft System Center Mobile Device Manager (in accordance to the documentation).
To understand what really is going on, I am wondering which provisioning methods (with NowSMS) should be the preferred one? Actually we don't want to setup the Microsoft MDM platform!
I read the thread about WAP-Push and the 4109 policy for service indication (SI)... and this one works very good. But the device does not work with oma xml based configs send over NowSMS... So what is wrong with the OTA xml provisioning? Any guess...? Enabling of some parameter on the device or NowSMS config? Or are these only restrictions coming from the device... quiet hard to believe... in comparison with the statement of MSCDM

Thanks
Des - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Desosms

Post Number: 1489
Registered: 08-2008
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 03:46 pm:   

Hi Morti,

I wish I knew the answers to this question. I do know that the default configuration of the devices has a lot of security layers that prevent these messages from being accepted.

You might find some clues here:

http://support.nowsms.com/discus/messages/1/24272.html

And there's some provisioning XML files for changing security settings and defining a trusted proxy that may also be helpful here:

http://support.nowsms.com/discus/messages/132/16969.html

--
Des
NowSMS Support
Des - NowSMS Support
Board Administrator
Username: Desosms

Post Number: 1490
Registered: 08-2008
Posted on Thursday, December 03, 2009 - 03:48 pm:   

Also, make sure that you're using NowSMS 2009, and not trying to use an earlier version.

There was a fix applied in NowSMS 2009 to the encoding based on a report from a customer who was sending provisioning messages to a Windows Mobile device. Earlier versions were skipping over some string literals that were not defined in standard OMA client provisioning.