Re: [mssms] BITS set via DCM off boundary, IP, or subnet

"maybe boundary now that clients hold that info" if you can query that locally on a client (I didn't look for where that is)... I've never done anything like you've mentioned, but you *could* do something like... an "application" configuration Item where... The "application exists" based on a

[mssms] BITS set via DCM off boundary, IP, or subnet

We are looking at using compliance settings to apply BITS settings to machines based on a machine's subnet or maybe boundary now that clients hold that info. Has anyone done anything similar? We are currently using client settings but it involves populating collections based off IP subnet

[mssms] RE: SCCM Best Practice around Boundaries?

The main reason I don’t use AD Sites is because I don’t control them so I don’t know that they are accurate. Other than that they work well. From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: Monday, November 28, 2016 7:52 AM To:

[mssms] SCCM Best Practice around Boundaries?

Hi Folks, We are still moving towards current branch and in the past we have used a mix for boundaries of AD Sites and IP Ranges (mostly for VPN slow networks). It's been mentioned that you should mix both and we are considering moving away from using AD Sites and I'm a bit confused as to why

RE: [mssms] Microsoft Ignite is it worth it?

+1 From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Sherry Kissinger Sent: Friday, November 25, 2016 3:07 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: Re: [mssms] Microsoft Ignite is it worth it? Here's my (opinionated) take on it. If you have a budget to

Re: [mssms] removing scep help

bump Stuart Watret On 24 Nov 2016, at 11:58, Stuart Watret > wrote: This sender failed our fraud detection checks and may not be who they appear to be. Learn about spoofing