| I've thought pretty hard about using company.com for external, and company.net for internal, and owning both domain names - I think that's pretty elegant, if possible.
This is exactly what we did. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kurt Buff Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2013 3:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Exchange] RE: Naming of new domain - .local or .com? On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:02 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > I would not use .local. It’s now on a list of reserved TLDs (after all > that foo-fa-raw with Apple’s BonJour). > > > > And I probably wouldn’t use anything tied to my company name, either. As > you see, mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures happen. > > > > How about pot.pan? Or ice.cube? > > > > You can use whatever UPN you want for your users. There is no reason they > should ever see it. I recommend you match your UPN to your primary email > address. I've thought pretty hard about using company.com for external, and company.net for internal, and owning both domain names - I think that's pretty elegant, if possible. I understand that M&A happens, but I would think at that point forest/domain trusts would be implemented, and a migration of machines during a plan. How does using a nonsense forest/domain name help with that process? Serious question - I might be facing something like that soonish. Kurt .
