Interesting. The online version I see says rangeupper is 256. Not sure how important that is, but...
Given the purpose of samaccountname I have a hard time believing something doesn't rely on that being 20 chars. Not to say that they haven't been since fixed, but that's too tempting for most folks not to just say, "well, to be usable it's limited to 20 chars and since Microsoft has that number published everywhere, we'll just assume it's 20 chars all the time..." or something like that.
Al
On 6/5/06, Joe Kaplan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The schema defines rangeUpper for sAMAccountName at 64. Where are you
getting a field size of 20?
All I can say is that they do seem to work fine in our environment and the
DS does not reject them, although I am pretty sure the DS rejects requests
to create users with sAMAccountName > 20 char. I am unaware of any APIs
that aren't working as a result of what we are doing, but it is certainly
possible that there are some. What should I check?
I'm almost curious enough to go back and dig into this a bit more, as I
remember testing this years ago and coming to the conclusion that we could
do this safely, but I don't remember everything I did. :)
Joe K.
----- Original Message -----
From: Al Mulnick
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Samaccountname attribute (20 char limit) not
applicable to gr oups?
I wonder if they do work? or if some of them don't because only the first 20
chars are being looked at/returned by the api's that consume them?
Interesting. That variable is a 20 char variable so I don't see why a
loophole of 64 is allowed? Any thoughts?
List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx
List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx
List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
