I've got a friend who purcahsed a used BB 8700 from ebay, however it has an it policy on there. She doesn't have the BES service added to her plan, and doesn't really want to add it just to have the policy removed.

Will doing the javaloader wipe and re-install of the latest OS remove that policy? Or would it be better off for her to apply the one linked here:

http://www.blackberryforums.com/rim-...ve-policy.html


and then wipe and re-install the latest os?

Follow the complete instructions here in the FAQ:
Remove IT Policy - BlackBerryFAQ

Good luck.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8800/4.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

To answer the question though it can be surmised from the above answer. In short NO it can't

The answer is yes, but you will need the javaloader from the 4.3.0 JDE. If you have that one you can do:

javaloader -u resettofactory

That will reset the IT Policy to the factory settings. Note that it will wipe the device as well.

Edit:
I use the '-u' switch since I connect the device using USB cable.

Edit 2:
I know this command (resettofactory) works with device OS 4.2.1 and above. Since you use an 8700 you might have an earlier OS than that, guess you have to try and see if it works on your device.

Wirelessly posted (BB 8860: BlackBerry8320/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

You have successfully used the resettofactory command on a 4.2.1 device? I've not been able to get it to work on anything but 4.3.0 and higher.

Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8800/4.2.1 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

Please if you have had success do share I to have not had success on the 4.2! Only 4.3

Also, the command has been placed in the latest version of JL_Cmder. I just can't confirm it works on 4.2.1 devices.

I've managed to use it on a device running 4.2.1.179 at least. I have also gotten it to work on a device running 4.2.2 of the OS. Unfortunately I do not know if it will work on all versions of 4.2.1, since I've not fully tried it out.

It may be that it was something that was added in a late version of the codeline. Would recommend that you simply try it out.