FWIW, I've always been a fan of disassociating the user account from the 
mailbox and then disabling the user access by disabling the user object from 
login, moving it to a new OU, removing the groups, marking the object with a 
time stamp for later use, and logging every action taken to a text file for 
later review and auditing functions.  
 
I can leave a user account that I can associate and disassociate at will if I 
need access.  It's not pretty, but then again, there is no pretty way to make 
this work. 
 
The scripts involved are pretty straightforward; it's a matter of figuring out 
what the process should be. 
 
My $0.04 anyway.
 
Al

________________________________

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tom Kern
Sent: Wed 8/17/2005 5:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] exchange weirdeness



thanks a lot!!

On 8/17/05, Coleman, Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For folks who have already left, I'd go with granting "Self" full
> mailbox access. I haven't tested it, but if the account has already been
> disabled then I don't think that setting it to expire on a date in the
> past will restore the necessary mailbox permissions for you to access
> it.
>
> For future departures, I think the ideal thing is to have some sort of
> deprovisioning utility that handles disabling the account, possibly
> moving it to a different OU, sets the Self mailbox access, and any other
> rules that your business processes dictate. You could have that as a
> script or front-end it with a web page.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 2:06 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] exchange weirdeness
>
> so, what is a good practice to deal with user's who have left and their
> mailboxes?
>
> Should you just expire the account to a date in the past and then you
> can access their box?
> or can you give "Self" full mailbox access to a disabled account and
> then access the box?
>
> which way works?
> thanks alot
>
> On 8/17/05, Coleman, Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No. You're running into the msExchMasterAccountSID problem.
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;555410 has
> > information, and points to the NoMAS tool. You can also handle this by
>
> > setting the attributes manually or via script.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:48 PM
> > To: activedirectory
> > Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] exchange weirdeness
> >
> > update- i enabled the user account about 30mins ago and updated the
> RUS.
> > stilll  i get denied trying to log on via outlook and an event id
> > 9548 gets logged on the exchange server everytime i try logging on,
> > stating that the account is still disabled...
> >
> > replication issue?
> >
> > dns is up and running. the only known issue is no connectivity to the
> > root. but the root has no users or mailservers.
> >
> > strange
> >
> > On 8/17/05, Tom Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I have mailbox enabled users in AD that have been disabled. However
> > > in
> >
> > > ESM, they are not marked as such. When i run the cleanup agent, they
>
> > > are still not marked as disabled.
> > >
> > > When i try to Exmerge the box, I get an access denied error(i have
> > > full exchange admin rights inherited from the org and full mailbox
> > > right on the user).
> > > Also, i can't open their box via outlook as well.
> > >
> > > My situation at this firm is as such- we have no network
> > > connectivity to the root(for about 2 wks. don't ask, long story..).
> > > The users are all in my child domain as are their mailboxes. the
> > > root
> > is empty.
> > >
> > > We are also running with netbios/tcp disabled forest wide.
> > >
> > > i know there are some issues with netbios being disabled and exmerge
>
> > > and ESM and outlook. Could this be a cause? I don't know the exact
> > > error you would get.
> > >
> > > I don't think having no connectivity to the root should be an issue.
> > > We have 4 dc's, 3 of which are gc's in the child domain.
> > >
> > > any advice would be great.
> > > thanks
> > >
> > 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/
>
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/


<<winmail.dat>>

Reply via email to