[ActiveDir] ADAM silent install

Title: ADAM silent install Hi I am trying to install ADAM unattended to be used for publishing Oracle DB's. I would like to grant administrators from the local computer as ADAM administrator and I would like to import some of the accompanying LDF files. ; Specifies the Administrators

Re: [ActiveDir] mailNickName(OT)

I ask because the reason mailNickName is in firstname.lastname format, is due to a dirsync process that runs once a day and reads that attribute to do an address rewrite. When a mailbox enabled user is created, the RUS stamps it with an [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Later, the dirsync process adds [EMAIL

RE: [ActiveDir] ADAM silent install

Since the current user is not an ADAM admin, he is not able to import LDIF files (since ldifde is launched in current users context). To get around the problem, you must specify SourceUsername and SourcePassword parameters in the unattend file. Another option is to import the LDIFs manually or

Re: [ActiveDir] ADAM silent install

Hi I think the problem is with But the user installing the ADAM instance is already member of administrators. The ADAM answer file reader does not seem to check that; if it sees the Administrator parameter in the answer file it assumes that the user running the install is not an ADAM

[ActiveDir] Scaling up with AD or ADAM?

Hi guys, We're helping a customer design a large new directory, to use with an Extranet environment. We see this thing scaling up to about 2 million active users, and up to about 10 million archival users (who no longer log in, but for various business reasons need to be kept around). The

RE: [ActiveDir] OT-Help with PFINFO fro Exchange 5.5

Found it, had to use my home pc to get to the ftp link from Microsoft... _ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Strongosky Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:11 PM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] OT-Help with PFINFO fro Exchange

RE: [ActiveDir] mailNickName(OT)

Hi Tom, Glad to hear you've moved on to bigger things. It only gets more fun as the numbers get larger. :) With regard to your email address question, you can update the recipient policy the RUS uses to automatically stamp everything with [EMAIL PROTECTED] You would set your recipient policy to

RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange 2007 and W2K3 R2 DC's on ESX - Optimal lab system

I am not sure if I interpreted you correctly. After reading your reply again I now think you would go with the single quad because even with one quad, cpu resources would not be an issue. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor W. Sent:

RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange 2007 and W2K3 R2 DC's on ESX - Optimal lab system

Yeah. I suspect you'll bottleneck on disk and memory before you do on CPU, so 1 quad will get you more than enough, as would I suspect 1 dual. Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

Re: [ActiveDir] mailNickName(OT)

Hey, thanks Brian. I really appreciate that. I know you can do that with the RUS and I'm sure they know, but they don't. It could have something to do with sharing the external domain with exchange,lotus, and funmail, but i'm not totally sure. Thanks!! Happy Thanksgiving,btw. On 11/23/06,

RE: [ActiveDir] mailNickName(OT)

Tom, How the external domain listed on the Enterprise Recipient Policy? (especially the 'authoritative' checkbox). SMTP domains being shared between multiple messaging environments gets pretty complicated, and Lotus and Exchange won't share a common LDAP instance for Sendmail to use. I

Re: [ActiveDir] mailNickName(OT)

Sharing can get complicated which is why they went this route. Lotus and Exchange dont use a common ldap instance, so sendmail uses dirX for ldap lookups for address rewriting. the external addy is a proxy address in the policy NOT a primary address(mail attribute). I guess everyone in the corp

RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Quickbooks really and truly will run without Admin rights

Yeah, but don't try running it on vista. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP] Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:34 AM To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: Quickbooks

RE: [ActiveDir] mailNickName(OT)

I don't understand your issue, then. Can you rehash it for me and I'll make a second attempt? Thanks, Brian Desmond [EMAIL PROTECTED] c - 312.731.3132 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Kern Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 5:14 PM To:

Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Quickbooks really and truly will run without Admin rights

Patience. That's the next goal and will be rectified as well. (Intuit beta tester and yes, they are doing a special beta for that) Michael B. Smith wrote: Yeah, but don't try running it on vista. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of

Re: [ActiveDir] Scaling up with AD or ADAM?

That's a classic scenario for ADAM. I wouldn't use AD for that as you just need bind auth for users of a web app. AD actually gives you a ton of stuff you don't need and some additional complexity. ADAM scales the same as AD, so there is no advantage from a scale point of view to use AD.

Re: [ActiveDir] Scaling up with AD or ADAM?

Thanks, Joe. I'll look up Eric's blog for metrics and such ASAP. :-) I was thinking ADAM was the likely choice - just wasn't sure how much production experience folks had with it (it's still new-ish), or quite how to size it. Re federation - that looks like a subsequent phase, and ADFS

RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Exchange 2007 and W2K3 R2 DC's on ESX - Optimal lab system

Hi Victor, ESX is licensed per CPU socket, so from that point of view a single quad-core CPU is half the ESX licensing price of two dual-core CPUs. Just something else to consider... Cheers, David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Victor