Exactly, I don't want to have to be modifying the extensionAttribute EVERY time I add a new user to that specific OU.
Unless, like what Al was saying, I could some how create a script, apply it to a GPO, that when the user logs in, it modifies their extensionAttribute based on their OU.
-Devon
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:17 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Address List based on OU
I prefer a script that can be waked up to read that OU periodically and assure me to some degree that the objects contained are tagged as I expect them to be.
ADMODIFY would like do it as well. I'm sure *somebody-who's-name-starts-with-j* would have a tool preference that would also do such a thing. Well, pretty sure anyway. :)
On 6/6/06, Harding, Devon < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Damn…I was trying to avoid using extensionAttribute
Oh well….admodify.NET?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 3:05 PMSubject: Re: [ActiveDir] Address List based on OU
You can't directly do that. To do that, you'll want to tag each of the users in that OU with some attribute and then create your AL based on that attribute instead.
Al
On 6/6/06, Harding, Devon < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have several sites that are sitting on one mailbox store but are located in different OU's. What LDAP query can I use to create an Exchange 2003 address list, based on users that are in a particular OU?
-Devon
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may constitute as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, notify us immediately by telephone and (i) destroy this message if a facsimile or (ii) delete this message immediately if this is an electronic communication.
Thank you.
I hadn't really thought about putting it on the users to logon and do work. That's too much work to ensure they can update, that they logon, etc. I was thinking more like something in my provisioning code or putting a scheduled job out there that wakes up a couple of times a day and checks for the objects in that OU and for each that doesn't have the attribute set but lives in that OU, sets the attribute and logs it's actions.
I don't trust users to do the work. :)
On 6/7/06, Harding, Devon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
