I doubt seriously that Microsoft will continue to use that model in future versions. Of course, I can barely believe that they went with that model this time. To exclude the domain model in favor of using the GAL as an authentication source is so strange to me I almost can't fathom it.
Al
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. Is it safe for me to assume that the only consideration in doing this is the token size?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Coleman, Hunter
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 9:24 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Switching distibution lists to security groups
Rob-
This came up just the other day. Check http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/msg47273.html and see if the responses there help.
Hunter
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Huber, Rob (HNI Corp)
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 8:10 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] Switching distibution lists to security groupsHello,
This may be an easy answer, but I want to get feedback anyway. What are the potential problems/issues/concerns with switching distribution groups to security groups? Our Sharepoint group has rolled out Sharepoint site permissions based on DLs. I believe that DLs should be used for DLs and security groups should be used for security (or permissions in this case) and have encouraged them to set the permissions accordingly. Their counter is that the site owners do not know the membership of the security groups, but know the membership of their respective groups DLs and therefore it is easier to administrate the permissions that way. A simple fix would be to switch the DLs to security groups, however that seams a bit too simple.