Can an iPhone successfully have an IMAP session with a Unity Connection 7.x?
Using another IMAP client, such as Outlook works fine; but an iPhone returns error messages when attempted.
If there is a solution, can you share it?
I have read elsewhere that other versions on Unity (Unity Express) had an issue as an IMAP feature (Search) was not enabled in which later versions addressed but Unity Connection is not called out directly.
According to Cisco TAC, no IMAP support for mobile devices until Unity Connections 8.5. It's due out in December of 2010.
Yes, you can have IMAP connection from iPhone to Unity Connection 7.x. See: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cumc/cisco_mobile/iPhone/8_0/Cisco_Mobile_iPhone_8x_Admin_Guide.html#wp668234
Is there a way to do this only using iPhone Mail versus Cicso Mobile for iPhone 8.x (visual voicemail feature)?
Using iPhone Mail for both a user's Exchange store and an IMAPS to Unity Connection for their voice message store is the desired customer environment.
You were actually talking about two different features:
Feature #1 Unified Messaging.
This feature allows you to receive voicemail as an attachment with regular email client. This part does NOT particularly require IMAP configuration. Though you may choose an IMAP client as email client, you actually can use any email client like POP3, Exchange or web client.
Feature #2 IMAP access to voicemail.
This feature allows you access voicemail storage via IMAP. To do that, you need to purchase IMAP license from Cisco. And you have to explicitly configure IMAP on server side.
We do have the proper licence and setup (class of service, etc).
If we use a Outlook client IMAP access with a NAT to the CUC server everything works for a subscriber.
If we use iPhone Mail with a NAT to the CUC server it just doesn't quite work. . .
If client A (Outlook) and client B (iPhone) have different behaviors with the same server (Unity Connection), shouldn't you contact the client vendor instead of the server vendor?
I mean, just think it logically.
I understand; I am just trying to get my customer more business value to edge out a competitive product out of Redmond.
I see another NetPro article/thread on this subject where someone states that they got this to work but with CUC 2.x.
I see another Netpro article/thread on this subject where someone states that Cisco modified the "server side" in the CUE offering (not CUC) to allow iPhone access via IMAP to that product.
I have two TAC cases where they both got closed as the TAC support/engineer ultimately refers to the approved desktop clients which address desktop connectivity, not smartphone or tablet offerings.
I have a datasheet that talks to generic IMAP access with CUC 7.x and I have another CCO document that calls out IMAP with Outlook or Safari.
I hate to think that I have customers that are to progressive in moving beyond desktop clients into the smartphone/tablet world.
So, my original post was to get real-world feedback on if anyone else is successfully using iPhone Mail via IMAP/IMAPS with CUC 7.x or 8.x.
Outside of that, we have tried CM8.x and the feedback is that using iPhone Mail to poll for VM via IMAP would be preferred.
I completely agree with you - Cisco should address and fix this issue as soon as possible.
From my point of view - this small problem has very high visibility and so should be fixed quickly.
I already have few unhappy customers because of this.
Many executives are using iPhones and for many of them this is a major inconvinience.
Since these guys are signing checks and approving purchases (and very often they are not technical at all) - there's very high chance that this small problem will kill few Cisco sales in favor of other vendors who do not have such problem.
Telling to the big boss that he needs to trash his lovely iPhone 4 just to be able to get voicemail - that's probably silly idea that can potentially lead to the career change event for some of the IT folks. The very probable reaction from the big boss can be something like this - "Who and why decided to implement the system that has such problems?"
I bet that this should be very easy to fix if someone @Cisco will be willing to listen.