Well not so much as a call out as it is to make sure Shawn gets the correct info. I have had several occasions where I have run into MS (as well as other vendors/people) who have stated authoritately something and were not really speaking authoritatively, they were giving their opinion or how they thought it should work or how they wished it to work, etc. If you haven't "taught" your local MS people it is ok to say "I don't know, let me find the answer for you" the odds are they won't say it even if it is true as they seem to think they shouldn't say that. The better the MS person in general the quicker they will say I don't know if they don't know.
I have had MS Support guys straight up say to me that for instance the 5000 approx limit in Windows 2000 for MV attributes was secretly fixed in a QFE and is out on everyone's directory already and there are no limits now. Of course I spit my coke out when I was told that and went into I am going to beat you black and blue for saying that mode because it was obviously completely fabricated yet the person stated it like it was well known indisputable fact[1]. It was interesting because it was never admitted to that the guy made it up, instead everything was pulled out of email and into a conference call and the person who said it was noticably lacking and the direction MS pushed the meeting was completely different. Getting jumped from email to a con call seemed to me to be a good indicator that I was getting MS to a point where they didn't want to write things in email either because they didn't really know what they were talking about (at least the people I was dealing with) or something they didn't want me to repeat. Getting me to not repeat something is easy, they have to be the ones telling me something (i.e. I didn't find it on my own) and they have to say this is NDA info. If I found it first or they never say it is NDA [2], it isn't NDA and can be repeated. I think they prefer the con call though because it is harder to recall exactly what was said and the promised meeting notes either never appear or are different from what actually occurred. I have heard other fun things like O2K pre-sr2 doesn't do RFR, the RUS follows the LDAP RFC 1960 instead of 2254 so the handling of the NOT (!) operator is different when doing ALs or other things that take LDAP filters, that DSACCESS doesn't use any of the native Windows methods for finding DCs, etc, etc, etc. It is silly, if you don't know something, either say, I don't know or I am not sure and follow it with let me find out. This is a huge suite of products and functions, no one expects anyone to know everything about it. This goes for many vendors, it is your product, you are the authority, but what you say needs to be right or you need to say, let me find out for you. joe [1] Note I would have reacted entirely differently if the person had pre- or post- fixed the answer with I believe or I think instead of saying this is exactly how it works in such a way that it doesn't need to be discussed further. The whole issue was about an attribute on an Exchange object and the answer was that >5000 wasn't an issue because the attribute was a backlink. I didn't know it was a backlink when the discussion first came up as it was simply called a multivalued attribute and the PSS guy I worked with either didn't know it was a backlink or didn't know why a backlink was special. [2] Something could be obviously NDA like say when we are at an MVP summit in a session about futures. Even if they didn't say specifically this is NDA (which they are always careful about doing anyway) you would know it was based on where you are and who is talking to you. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Myrick, Todd (NIH/CIT) Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication and the compression algorithm Nothing like getting publicly called out... hehe Todd -----Original Message----- From: joe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Replication and the compression algorithm That would seem to be unusual. Possibly there is some mistunderstanding somewhere along the line. Have the Microsoft guy point you to documentation. If you want, name the Microsoft guy here and I am sure some other Microsoft guys will contact that person. Oh yeah list if the person was MCS, a TAM, or PSS. joe -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shawn Hayes Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2004 7:35 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [ActiveDir] Replication and the compression algorithm We had a Microsoft guy tell us we will not benefit from the new compression algorithm in Windows 2003 if we have manually created connection objects. Does anyone agree with that? What does the compression algorithm have to do with the KCC and ISTG? Thanks, Shawn Hayes MCSE (2003, 2000, NT) Messaging Systems Engineer City of Virginia Beach (757) 219-2057 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/
