http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mucker
mucker
\Muck"er\, n. A term of reproach for a low or vulgar labor person. [Slang]
Let the Ragin' begin!
(Thought I could have sworn it was a lazy way to say "mofo" :) )
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT
> Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:45:01 -0400
>
> Ignore Dean. He's going to try and D.O.S. a couple of companies I specified
> to him. If you see Dean's name in the papers next to buildings that are
> burning to the ground then you can listen to the conspiracy theories that
> require running S-DDNS. ;o) How many times was your NT environment DOS'ed
> by purposeful attacks on WINS? If you had an issue with WINS being
> unauthenticated at any point it was one of a couple of items
>
> 1. You screwed up WINS yourself some how by doing something stupid or
> through inaction allowing something stupid to happen.
> 2. Someone fired up a SAMBA box and had no flipping clue what they were
> doing on Linux OR Windows.
> 3. Someone tried to set up a test domain using production WINS and using the
> real name of the production domains.
>
> Even with those three items I can think of 2 cases in 10 years of these
> things and one was cleared up in about a week and the other was cleared up
> in about 15 minutes. The first should have been cleared up in 15 minutes too
> except the people working on it didn't understand Windows nor WINS nor did
> the Alliance people working the issue.
>
> In the meanwhile, if an employee of a company wants to hurt AD, there are
> more subtle and less trackable mechanisms to do so than going after DNS.
> Anyone that attacked AD by going after AD is just a script kiddie punk with
> no vision. Heck even the script kiddies aren't going after it.
>
> BTW, anyone know what a mucker is? I am trying to figure out if I am
> supposed to be morally outraged. <eg>
>
> joe
>
>
> --
> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dean Wells
> Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 2:55 PM
> To: Send - AD mailing list
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS on a DC or NOT
>
> Ignore joe ... he's just an LDAP/DS purist ... as a general rule of thumb,
> keep the AD representative DNS zones within the directory configured to
> accept secure updates only. Use app. NCs or don't depending upon the
> forest's config., too many variables and much discussion for me right now on
> that one I'm afraid ... but suffice it to say that for me; I prefer app. NCs
> where possible.
>
> --
> Dean Wells
> MSEtechnology
> * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://msetechnology.com
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:01 AM
> > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> > SO you are concerned about overall load then. This is something that
> > is addressed in larger orgs often by segregating the PDC off in its
> > own logical site which is hung off the main site it would normally be
> > part of. That means it will usually not be used for autocoverage of
> > other WAN sites and it will not become a large site bridgehead[1] and
> > naturally avoided by any Exchange in that site if Exchange for some
> > reason decides to beat on it due to some bad decision by an Exchange
> > admin during configuration. This is especially helpful if you have a
> > large legacy client load or lots of stupid applications that are using
> > the old NET API (or WinNT provider) primarily which already overly
> > target PDCs.
> >
> > joe
> >
> >
> > [1] I recall asking way back at the 2003 RAP/RDP conference for a
> > switch to say use all DCs but these special ones for bridgeheads, I
> > would rather manage exceptions than manage the ones that are the ones
> > to be used. Best is to be able to specify either way.
> >
> >
> > --
> > O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
> > http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> > Carlos Magalhaes
> > Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 9:44 AM
> > To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DNS on a DC or NOT
> >
> > Let me put that into perspective (and from reading the post
> > again I thought it came across), the blog entry refers to
> > networks with a large client load.
> > I don't mean do NOT have DNS on your server it recommends
> > (Option 2) releasing some of the load with the two registry
> > settings, i.e.
> > *LdapSrvPriority *and *LdapSrvWeight*.which is explained in
> > the entry :)
> >
> > These settings I have only ever used on large networks when I
> > have noticed a large amount of DNS traffic being routed to
> > the PDC DNS Service. :)
> >
> > Does that explain the post if not just let me know what more
> > information you need and I will explain it :)
> >
> > Carlos Magalhaes
> >
> > ASB wrote:
> > > Which blog entry...
> > >
> > > -ASB
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/17/06, *Krenceski, William* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > >
> > > I was reading Carlos's blog about not running DNS on the PDC
> > > emulator. It all makes perfect sense to not have DNS running on
> > > it. In my relatively small setup we have @60 servers,
> > 560pc's, on
> > > 8 networks (some remote some vlans). I have 2 DC's at
> > my main site
> > > with one at each remote site. All DC's are GC and DNS. I always
> > > thought that in order for DNS to work as AD integrated
> > you're DNS
> > > servers had to be DC's. If that is NOT true my face is red for
> > > believing so for so long.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > **
> > > **
> > > *William Krenceski*
> > > *Network Administrator*
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> >
> > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> > List archive:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
> >
> > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> > List archive:
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
> >
> >
>
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
>
> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
> List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT Jef Kazimer
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT Dean Wells
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT joe
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT Rich Milburn
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT Mark Arnold
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT Ulf B. Simon-Weidner
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT joe
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT Thomas O'Brien
- RE: [ActiveDir][OT] DNS on a DC or NOT neil.ruston
