Thanks both of you. I understand the concept of X.500 addresses being useful for maintaining the ability to reply to senders whose mailbox has moved elswhere. It doesn't explain why:
A) they are required for the IIFP. At a basic level I can manually emulate the GAL sync behaviour by creating a Contact object and assigning just an SMTP and X.400 address. Mail flow will work just fine without the need for an X.500 address; B) each user object receives two X.500 addresses (one corresponding to each Exchange organisation); C) the Contact objects also receive two X.500 addresses. I'll run it past some of the guys and the product group and see what comes back. Tony -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tomasz Onyszko Sent: Saturday, 23 September 2006 1:09 a.m. To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT] IIFP GAL Sync: X.500 Addresses Al Mulnick wrote: > There's an additional reason you would want those addresses: replies > to email will work with that address stamped on there. There was a > blog entry last year related to x.500 addresses and their usage on > "you had me at ehlo" or something like that. Yes, that's the case - if something will be sent (for example reply) on this "second" address it will be delivered if You will have this X500 address. If You are using standard GAL scenario delivered with IIFP this is correct configuration. I think AL is thinking about this post: http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2004/03/24/95451.aspx -- Tomasz Onyszko http://www.w2k.pl/ - (PL) http://blogs.dirteam.com/blogs/tomek/ - (EN) 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 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
