How many users, Ben? You can put them on legal hold; that should satisfy the powers that be. As for the x500 / 400 problem; I've been dealing with that as well - one of our sister companies changed the password policy on their domain, effectively locking out the account we use to sync - nice.
Anyway, if it's only a few users (yes, you're right, I didn't read the whole thread); you need to edit it in ADSIEdit as well. But they would still need to update their address book and delete the corrupt contact from their cache. On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:55 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Michael B. Smith <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I could explain why, 99% of the time, Outlook/Exchange do the right > thing. > > It ultimately comes down to design philosophy. > > I get that Microsoft is trying to make references robust in the face > of routine human events, like name changes, typos, personnel > reassignments, server moves, and so on. I'm fine with that idea. > > However, the references are immutable, so they cannot be fixed when > things go wrong. The mechanisms which are used are well-hidden and > poorly-documented, despite being critical to the proper operation of > the system. > > Further, several other mechanisms are provided, which have the > explict purpose of being reference handles (account names, email > addresses, etc.), and these are ignored, despite mechanisms for > changing them being provided. > > Worse still, the UI sometimes actively lies about these references, > displaying one thing, and then using another. This inevitably > astonishes the user. > > Typically the defensive cry is, "By using an opaque, hidden, > immutable ID, we prevent people from depending on it". Except people > still depend on it (witness the current scenario), it's just not well > understood or easily fixed. > > This pattern repeats throughout Microsoft's designs, and I gather > they regard it as a good thing. I have to disagree. But then, > they're the biggest software company in the world, and I'm just a > lowly system administrator, so perhaps the objective judgement would > be in their favor. > > -- Ben > > >
