Al, thanks 4 reply to this topic I am duly advised on yr view of the 5.5 directory being authoritative for the "mail-related attributes" and will leave alias well alone !!
what is fact though the 5.5 directory has alot of data such as Title , Department that are inconsistent in there content - certainly less current than AD - hence no desire to replicate this data. i take it that these are informational as opposed to functional in an exchange organisation thanks for yr help on this GT On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:33:00 -0400 , "Mulnick, Al" wrote: > > Hmmm.... This is interesting. You're saying that your client-visible data > is less reliable than your Active Directory data? Really? Is that > perception echoed by your end users? If not, I think you may want to > rethink that approach. > > Mail, mailnickname, etc are all very important to Exchange operation; > changing them would open the door for problems in your implementation, some > of which you may not see immediately. However, alias field is not > guaranteed unique for what it's worth. It's RDN is unique in that path, but > the only fields that are guaranteed to be unique in a 5.5 directory are the > X.400 and SMTP addresses. Outside of that, any field out there can be > duplicated in a separate RDN. > > One thing that may help is to change your thinking on what you are about to > do. You are NOT merging two directories. You are joining two directories. > There's a subtle yet important distinction that will help you better > understand what's important to you and what's not. For example, if you join > directories, you are in essence making one larger directory. If you merge > them, it indicates a one time update of both and then getting rid of one. > You are not doing a one timer here. > > When you join directory services, you have to decide which is authoratative > for which attributes. In the case of ADC, the default is to assume that 5.5 > is authoratative for mail-related attributes. Why? Likely because it's more > disruptive to the end user population to change the GAL. Since the GAL is > built on mail-related attributes, it makes a LOT of sense to go down this > path. > > > My advice? Fix your BAS 5.5 directory attributes prior to joining the two > directories. Don't let the ADC be the bad guy else you'll be chasing that > forever and a day. The ADC purpose is to help you join the directories in > support of upgrade, not to fix years of bad processes and dirty data. If > you try to use it that way, you may not be very happy with the results. > > That said, you can modify what the ADC will consider 5.5 authoratative for. > The reason why you would do this is to prevent 5.5 from overwriting good > data. Since it's a join and not a merge :) it will the authoratative > attributes will also overwrite the 5.5 entries. But you can control which > attribute is considered authoratative if you know what you're trying to > accomplish and it's impact. > > I don't advise changing the alias attribute to anyone I've done this for > because it's not seen by the regular Active Directory admins anyway unless > they have the Exchange dll's loaded or they're looking via some other method > outside of ADUC. It's non-consequential for anything other than a mailer. > > The attribute that usually gives the most heartburn is the display-name <--> > displayName join and you can find information about how to properly map this > change in KB's. > > > -AJM > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 8:39 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] adc replication > > Bill, thanks for prompt reply on this one. > > as per previous post we are looking for a one-off hit of replication from > 5.5 directory to facilitate the "mail-enabling" of AD users who have entries > in 5.5 directory. > > there is no intention to replicate the AD directory to 5.5 based on a rapid > move of mailboxes to a ex2k3 server, where as you say we are in a native > mode of operation. > > the proposal of not merging the alias attribute data is not borne out of a > specific reason NOT to do it, but more an approach of merging to the AD only > where explicitly required. > > this is also based on a tenet that the Ex 5.5 directory has data that is > already in the AD and which is generally of a "lower quality" than the AD > > i suppose this then comes down to an understanding of the requirement for > the mailnickname attribute. > > as i remember (all those years ago) the Alias attribute could be used by an > Outlook client as the data to supply when setting up the profile. > > not too sure of other applications that used it / mailnickname attribute. > > Thanks > > GT > > > > > On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 07:51:39 -0400, "Brown, Bill [contractor]" wrote: > > > > > Graham, > > > > If I remember my E55 correctly - and I think I do - then the ALIAS in > > E55 has a one-to-one relationship with a mailbox. There can not be > > duplicate ALIASes in E55. I do believe that the same holds true in > > AD. This is easily proved out in the test bed. Assuming that you are > > going to setup a two-way ADC - you can assign which way you want the > > first replication to go. From Exchange to AD - or from AD to > > Exchange. And yes, ALIAS [in > E55] > > does go mailNickname in AD. > > > > I mean the entire process of putting up the ADC would be to insure > > that AD and E55 are working with the same information - until such > > time as you can remove all of the E55 components in the Exchange > > organization and proceed to a native mode of operation. Unless you > > are drastically changing your Exchange system - I can not understand > > why you would not want the E55 > ALIAS > > in AD... > > > > R/Bill > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner > > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 7:30 AM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [ActiveDir] adc replication > > > > dear all, further to earlier item on impact on the AD directory > > following ADC synchronization. > > > > have been through the Exchange 5.5 directory and found the attributes > > that 'map' to the mailbox properties. > > > > am quite comfortable about disabling the merging of most attribute > > data using the Default ADC > > > > one that i am less comfortable with is the merging of the alias > > (attribute UID ?) value into the AD > > > > from the schema map file this looks to be mapped to the "mailnickname" > > attribute in AD > > > > can anyone confirm whether this is in fact a correct interpretation of > > the attribute mapping and if so perhaps a view on the impact of NOT > > merging this data into the AD ?? > > > > TIA > > > > GT > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > > > > > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > > List archive: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ > List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm > List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
