-29.57.777
> ( Mobile : +31-(0)6-26.26.62.80
> * E-mail :
>
> ________
>
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Graham Turner
> Sent: Tue 2007-01-16 17:37
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] adminsdholder
>
>
&g
de Almeida Pinto
> Senior Infrastructure Consultant
> MVP Windows Server - Directory Services
>
> LogicaCMG Nederland B.V. (BU RTINC Eindhoven)
> ( Tel : +31-(0)40-29.57.777
> ( Mobile : +31-(0)6-26.26.62.80
> * E-mail :
>
>
Dear all, i think we experieincing issues re not being able to reset
permissions on
an object that was previously member of protected groups
i have read that the issue is around the reset of the value of 'admincount'
attribute.
as i learn this gets set to 1 when it is becomes a member of protec
Windows Group Policy Guide, the definitive resource for Group
> Policy information.
>
> Group Policy Management solutions at www.sdmsoftware.com
>
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: We
this is query re processing of computer group policies. i note that not
strictly AD
related so i hope not to get 'shot down' !
i wanted to get a view on the 'retry' behaviour of the WIndows 2000 group policy
engine, in a scenario of a user-initiated VPN, in which domain controller
connectivity is
--
> sent wirelessly using iPAQ 6900
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Graham Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "activedir@mail.activedir.org"
> Sent: 10/19/06 5:29 PM
> Subject: [ActiveDir] sysvol replication
>
> Just a quick query on sy
Just a quick query on sysvol replication
we have put in place strategy for delegation of directory shared as netlogon by
way
of adding an ACE to the NTFS permissions
is it correct that on DC's running Windows 2000 SP4 that a change in the NTFS
permissions will generate the change notifications s
at default behavior, your GPOs will be "upgraded" to 2003,SP1, but in
> general, as long as you are on 2003, SP1 or XP, SP2, you should be good to
> go.
>
> Clear as mud?
>
> Darren
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
st source for GPO FAQs, video training, tools and
> whitepapers. Also check out the Windows Group Policy Guide, the definitive
> resource for Group Policy information.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham
quick question (hopefully not too daft) ref ADM file management
it seems different OS's ship with different versions of the 'standard' ADM files
that include conf.adm / interes.adm / system.adm ...
say if you are maintaining policies that link to containers holding say XP ,
2000,
2003 computers
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:08 PM
> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] management of group policy links (GPMC)
>
> thanks both
>
> What this is all about is put
ren
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner Sent:
Wednesday, August 23, 2006 10:05 AM
> To: activedir@mail.activedir.org
> Subject: [ActiveDir] management of group policy links (GPMC)
>
> Dear all, as i rec
Dear all, as i recall / understand group policy links are stored as an attribute
(gplink) of the OU.
It seems that GPMC is fine at summarising the links on a per OU basis as you
step
down the forest / domain structure.
However it seems to lack a summary of OU / linked GPO(s) / link order / secur
article for more information:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q281923/
>
> Let us know if that turned out to be the cause.
>
> Have a great day!
>
> Robert Williams
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
Dear all, am experiencing issues that i think attributable to the concept of
Active
Directory phantoms
the symptom is that when we open certain global groups the membership list
comes out
with grey icons
this is not all groups - affected ones being - Domain Users / Domain computers
must confes
Darren, thanks as always for helpful reply
presumably the 'source' for the download will be that which GP editor uses (ie
primarily the pdce) i think ??
surely the implication of the download from the DC sysvol is that from a
'version
control' view is that it is 'best / better' working practice
Dear all, i think this may be a really daft question but anyways !!
reading up on strategies for ADM / sysvol management for Windows 2000
just wanted to wonder how the Windows 2000 group policy editor resolves the
scenario
of an ADM file not being present on the machine which is view/edit the GP
Dear all, needing to seek further assistance on OU delegations.
We have applied a delegation using the custom delegation wizard;
Create / Delete computer object
this works fine and dandy in the context of creating and deleting computer
objects
in the container and its sub-containers.
however w
Dear all, was wondering if someone could give us a view on the delegation of the
'user must change password at next logon'
it seems that having applied the delegation (using Windows 2000 delegation
wizard on
a Windows 2000 domain) that allows 'reset password on user objects' , the
delegate
can c
Why not have the DAs create and link,
> and allow user 1 and 2 to edit (only) "their" GPOs? You appear to have
> relinquished all control of your GPOs to non-admins :(
>
> neil
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Dear all, I am looking to some information with respect to Group policy object
delegation.
the requirement is to allow additional users to create new GPO's without 'Domain
Admins' membership.
Seems the way to go is to add the user accounts to the 'Group policy creator
owners'
group.
this allows
the GC site that Outlook
> uses is to either use that key else have Exchange hand out the GC you
> want it to. There were some improvements in that process in OL2K3 and
> Exchange 2K3 products, but you're not using those versions right?
>
> Al
>
> -Original Message-
Dear all, i have been away from the list for absolutely ages but i need to go
over
an issue of GC discovery with Outlook XP that need some help on.
this may be regarded as OT to this list, but have posted on an MS Outlook
newsgroup
site with nothing back so i hope this post to be in order.
i re
dear all, was wondering if the list could give me any views / specific
information on the usage of the group policy value;
run only allowed windows applications
i would suspect that there are constraints on its usage based (not only on
a practical basis), but also on a maximum length of the stora
dear all, doing a bit of audit on a dns infrastructure and reviewing output
from a windows 2000 server dns log
am looking at a number of queries that are generating 'nxdomain' responses
and was endeavouring to work out where they would be coming from;
the query is;
_ldap._tcp.dc._msdcs.DOMAINCON
Dear all, am needing to support a "sharepoint" deployment
change request has come from the project teams, requesting modification to
the "replicating directory changes" permissioning
before we proceed was looking to understand a little about this permission
and by inference the impact of sharepoi
dear all, am looking to explicitly delegate the modification of 2 attributes
of the user object
these are display name / email address (as viewed in the General tab)
using the delegation wizard and the custom delegation of the user objects
and then selecting property specfiic permissions we don;
this post relates to the general tenet of permissioning of AD objects - ou's
et al - and seeking views on how ACL's are applied to OU (or for that matter
any directory object I suppose)
all the delegation references seem to indicate that group objects should be
used as ACE's - totally happy with t
gives the most heartburn is the display-name
<-->
> displayName join and you can find information about how to properly map
this
> change in KB's.
>
>
> -AJM
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gr
> in AD...
>
> R/Bill
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 7:30 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] adc replication
>
> dear all,
dear all, further to earlier item on impact on the AD directory following
ADC synchronization.
have been through the Exchange 5.5 directory and found the attributes that
'map' to the mailbox properties.
am quite comfortable about disabling the merging of most attribute data
using the Default ADC
e 5.5 display that the ADC would replicate to the AD cn
and
> name fields. Following MSKB 269834 stopped the 5.5 display name from
> overwriting cn and name, and replicated the 5.5 displayname only to the AD
> displayname.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Am reviewing the procedures for forest recovery from MS paper titled
"Windows 2000 forest recovery".
it does document an issue of DNS registration by child domain controllers of
records on a DNS server in the root domain.
could anyone explain further the requirement for GC wrt DNS registration.
om/exchange/library
>
>
> Finally, what document are you referencing so we can all see the same
> information. If it needs to be fixed, then we should submit that for
> fixing.
>
> Al
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROT
gt;
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 3:32 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] AD replication from 5.5 using ADC
Graham,
AD does default to First Name Sur Name on new account creation. The
following KB Article explains how to change that:
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=250455
R/Bill
-Original Mes
hopefully once again i am not charged with going too O/T with this one, but
was looking to get a bit of further information on the potential impact of a
replication from an exchange 5.5 server to a win2k AD
it seems there is potential for the change of attributes already in the AD
if there is diff
l2002
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
Sent: Friday, July 23, 2004 1:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] outlook / gc client discovery
Dear all, thanks all for your positive views on this issue.
first up i apo
> zeroing in on unimportant things. I'll assume the previous in your case
> because that would make a lot more sense.
>
> Bottom line is that there is no reason you wouldn't want to create a 5.5
> - like topology if centralizing. You would create an active directory
site,
.
>
> joe
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 9:22 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [ActiveDir] dcpromo replication
>
> can anyone confirm the mechanism by w
can anyone confirm the mechanism by which dcpromo being run discovers the
source of domain information on the initial dc promotion.
i know we doing this unattended you can hardcode a source into the script
file but how does it find a source when left to its own devices ??
q223757 tells us "the cl
can anyone confirm the mechanism by which dcpromo being run discovers the
source of domain information.
i know we doing this unattended you can hardcode a source into the script
file but how does it find a source when left to its own devices ??
GT
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list
ons and if you're spread out over many
> sites with a centralized Exchange server, consider the recreation of
> Exchange 5.5 functionality with regards to directory service.
>
> Al
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
just wanted to run this by the mailing list
i know there to be a whole raft of objects left behind in the directory
after unorderly shutdown of DC
however even in an orderly demotion seems there is a server object left
behind at;
CN=servername.,CN=servers,CN=site,CN=configuration,DC=
i assu
about the behavior. Like
I
> said, be careful to note the versions and if you're spread out over many
> sites with a centralized Exchange server, consider the recreation of
> Exchange 5.5 functionality with regards to directory service.
>
> Al
>
>
> -Original Message-
dear all, am a bit nervous posting this on account of going way OT as this
post falls quite definitely under Outlook 2002 configuration, but there is
obviously relation to AD so here goes ...
understanding the mechanisms of GC 'discovery' would it seem be very
important to optimal deployment of ou
e into a site with a long
> replication frequency but not over a week. Do your update, then when you
are
> ready, do a repadmin /sync on one or more of the connections.
>
> joe
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Beh
just doing some planning work for schema update to applying exchange 2003
forestprep
have viewed the equivalent docs for adprep on win2k3 -
i like very much the concept of disabling outbound repl from the schema
master server to which the update is applied using repadmin
/disable_outbound_repl co
Dear all, am looking to understand a bit better the processes of windows dns
server
scavening processes;
1. am i right in my understanding that scavenging does need to be explicitly
on a zone if it is enabled at a server level;
read somewhere that behaviour varies according to AD-integrated zones
Dear all, this one is not strictly Active Directory so hope this doesn't
p*** people off too much
we are looking to delegate the permissioning of the ability to restart print
spooler service which for some reason is not afforded to members of the
"print operators" local group
not sure of the logi
am attempting the debug of an application that i suspect to be failing on
account of a "run only allowed windows applications" policy
in this respect have enabled "user environment debug logging" as per
KB221833.
was expecting the application (or one of its components) that fails to log
something
ubject: RE: [ActiveDir] Time Sync in AD
Graham Turner <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> have picked up that w32tm is many times more functional on XP as
> compared to 2000.
>
> seems unless i am mistaken that w32tm on 2k does not support the
> "config domhier" to
Dear all, just "butting" into this thread so apologies for this
have picked up that w32tm is many times more functional on XP as compared to
2000.
seems unless i am mistaken that w32tm on 2k does not support the "config
domhier" to reconfigure the system to use the domain hierarchy.
was wonderin
> Obviously another thing to check is to make sure that the site link isn't
> enabled for change notification.
>
> joe
>
>
> [1] - Cool being a technical term in this use. :)
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PR
fication partner on any of the DCs
> in the Enterprise when looking at the partners via repadmin? Or do you see
> it listing any DCs as change notification partners for it?
>
> I have been successful at setting longer replication periods up to almost
a
> week long (Greater than th
a server has been joined to the AD infrastructure and promoted to DC for the
specific purpose of recovery of AD objects.
the intention is to configure the replication topology following what seems
to be termed as "lazy replication partner" model.
to this end the following tasks have been complete
eats the 100ms value for W2K and goes
> on to say that in 2003 the client waits 400ms between queries for the
> first 5 DC's, then 200ms between the next 5 then 100ms for the remaining
> DC's in the list.
> He further explains the various site coverage scenarios quite well in
Dear all, am attempting debug of a logon failure
we have found on the authenticating DC a security event log entry which
gives us a failure code 0xE
have referenced this Kerberos failure code to the following meaning;
"KDC has no support for encryption type"
this seems to be a machine specific
As we all know to death by now, local logon server discovery is by
determination of the DNS RR's for a DC in a computers own site.
qu. how does the client resolve the scenario of a response not being
received in a timely fashion. ?
what is the timeout value for a client not to receive a response
de Almeida
> Pinto
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] dc ip address change
>
> Hi,
>
> First move the server logically in AD (sites and services), change IP
> offline, move the server to the other subnet if IP address
I read with interest this post.
don't suppose there is any related policy that allows the administrator to
suppress the processing of login script (as set in the user a/c property)
when logging on locally ??
GT
- Original Message -
From: "Darren Mar-Elia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL
does anyone have views on the procedure of changing the IP address of a
server that is a DC ??
1. is it a supported operation - which i would think it has to be !
2. what directory changes need to be made - one that comes to mind is the
move of the server object from the "servers" container of t
Good luck,
Darren
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 6:22 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] group policy processing of IE settings
Darren, thanks for the mail back (and perhaps a
nance
policy each time processing happens--foreground or background. If that
is still not solving your problem, then let us know.
Darren
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2003 4:13 AM
To: [EMAIL
jects have not changed". You can set this for the IE
Maintenance CSE by going into the GPO namespace under:
Computer Configuration|Administrative Templates|System|Group Policy|IE
Maintenance Policy Processing.
Darren
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
not sure if this list accepts issues relating to the configuration of
Internet explorer using Group policy - if not apolgoies but would
nonetheless be v glad for assistances on the apparently inconsistent
behaviour w.r.t the setting of the auto-configuration script value.
definites i can confirm;
Dear all, before i attempt the more involved debug of this funny one thought
i would see if any one could confirm similar observed behaviour;
win2k professional client has been migrated using ADMT 2.0
myself and and other admin can log on to the domain (same domain for user
and computer by the wa
have just read up on the fix provided by Q812499 / and also SP4
i see it enables a registry value but any further detail on what it does /
how it works seems to be a little bit elusive
any one care to elaborate on what it "actually" does ?
GT
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.ht
s the Enterprise Admin, you mean log on to a
server as the enterprise admin account and then try authorising it again
?
-Original Message-
From: Graham Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 29 October 2003 10:51
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] [OT]'ish DHCP authorizati
Have seen something along these lines
we initially performed the authorization using chid domain (where the DHCP
servers are) credentials - this seem to perform the authorization (certainly
wrote to the directory) but got messages as you describe.
the fix was a good hack using ADSIEDIT of the dir
don't know if i am jumping the gun once again, but am especially keen to get
hold of the documentation from Micrsoft on the delegations of administrative
tasks within Active Directory.
any news on its availability.
GT
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ: http://www.
Guido, I am definitely interested in this material.
I will be a very glad recipient
GT
- Original Message -
From:
GRILLENMEIER,GUIDO
(HP-Germany,ex1)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2003 7:58
AM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Robbie Allen DEC
was wondering if any one could give us a "heads up" on how we prevent a
windows 2000 domain controller from authenticating a user logon request.
by comparison on an NT4 domain controller, the configuration of "pausing"
the netlogon service would prevent the DC from authenticating a user logon
requ
Title: Message
here, here !!
- Original Message -
From:
Roger Seielstad
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 4:24
PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Forcing logoffs
9x
Cut
power to the building every few days? Wait for the 9x boxes to get unst
Have come back to the list after a while away - the paper on AD delegation
from MS looks to be of some good value - is this published yet ??
GT
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activ
Have just picked up on this thread of SUS - looks a real winner
would be glad for the views of the positioning of this product relative to
SMS ??
GT
- Original Message -
From: "Free, Bob" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 11:44 PM
Subject: RE:
where do we find FRSdiag ??
GT
- Original Message -
From: "Rittenhouse, Cindy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2003 8:32 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] sysvol not replicating
> I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble locating FRSDiag.
>
> -Original Mes
Title: Message
but what about the "discard forward lookup when lease expires"
??
have never got to the bottom of this given the security of the
A record which in default DHCP configuration is owned by the client
??
GT
- Original Message -
From:
Todd Povilaitis
To:
/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 3:05 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] authoritative GPO restore
>
> Darren, than
restores individual GPOs with their original GUID intact.
This is a lot more flexible than authoritative restore or any other
mechanism that has to try and extract portions of a single GPO from
backups of system state.
Darren
-Original Message-
From: Graham Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
i know this one has probably been done about 500 times already, but was
hoping to sound the mailing list out on techniques of differentiating
between Windows 2000 / NT4 from login script, given that both Windows 2000
and NT4 return "Windows NT" from a query of the "OS Version" environment
variable
was wondering if any one could give us info ADMT error 7557
this is being logged by the ADMT user migration wizard when selecting the
option to migrate passwords using password export server.
this has been working a treat to date but from the one article on this found
to date looks to name resolu
this could possibly be taken as OT - so apologies if this is the case - if
so not sure of the newsgroup to post to.
am considering issues of licencing in the context of a domain upgrade
it has been raised as a potential issue that client access licences procured
to support connection to NT4 domai
n,DC=com;
I haven't tried this and it's probably unsupported! So don't take my word
for it. Give it a go in your test lab if you want and let us know how you
get on.
Tony
-- Original Message --
From: "Graham Turner" <[EMAIL P
pting. Check out the
DomainMig.chm
> help file in :\Program Files\Active Directory Migration Tool\, or
> look at the sample migration scripts for additional information.
>
> Hunter
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesda
is there any way to change using a domain setting the default container into
which computer account objects are created for a windows 2000 domain. ??
GT
List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive
can anyone confirm how ADMT 2.0 handles the conflict of accounts that have
already been migrated from a source domain to a target domain.
it is required that accounts that have been migrated on an individual basis
for testing are not overwritten during a subsequent "mass migration" process
it wou
just wanted to get any issues that have come to light during an ADMT process
specfically relating to the function of the RID master
when doing a mid size migration (approx 4000 objects) it seems the
allocation of RIDs' may become an issue.
the operation of rid master is understood to be allocati
t; REM Modify the line below for location of workstation list
> set file=c:\temp\machineList.txt
>
> FOR /F "tokens=1 delims=, " %%i in (%file%) do shutdown \\%%i /R /c
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sen
erence.
>
> Additionally, I couldn't find in my brief surfing expedition what
> specifically the agent .exe are. Looking at our ADMT console the two
> probable candidates are "ADMTAgnt.exe" and "DCTAgentService.exe". If the
> only solution is to add the ag
figure out why ADMT was failing. On the ones that we did troubleshoot, it
> was never ADMT fault, it something whacked with the workstation OS, IP
> stack, NIC, or even <> the Novell client.
>
> Stuart Fuller
> Active Directory
> State of Montana
>
>
> -Origin
course the components are a more
recent build ??
supporting readme.doc contains no revision information !!
GT
- Original Message -
From: "Graham Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 3:58 PM
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] a
he
> LocalSystem context, and therefore should not be subject to the rules of a
> ruleset applied by system policy, AFAIK.
>
> Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> -
i assume that the issue documented in pss reference Q328786 relates to the
version of gptext.dll that is running on the client that is running the GPO
editor and not the DC's that are hosting it ??
how also about Q263179 - this sounds more to do with the storage of the GPO
on the sysvol share and
y
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 4:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: R
workstations' local admin group?
John WitasickProject Manager - Windows Networking Services
Group
- Original Message -
From:
Graham Turner
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 4:23
PM
Subject: [ActiveDir] admt 2.0
o: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
>
> Has the "Everyone" group been added to the "Pre-Windows 2000 Compatible
> Access" group in the new domain?
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Graham Turner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 3:24 PM
Larry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:45 PM
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] admt 2.0 - nt4 computer migration
> Has the "Everyone" group been added to the "Pre-Windows 2000 Compatible
> Access" group in the new domain?
Am attempting the migration of computer from NT4 source domain to Windows
2000 target domain.
the migration environment is working fine with windows 2000 professional
clients
have got issues with the migration of an NT4 workstation
the extract from dispatch.log on the admt server is attached fro
icrosoft MVP - Active Directory
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner
> Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2003 11:39 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROT
have just picked up this thread, is this not one of the features that is
enabled on conversion of a domain to native mode ??
i know behaviour of the "domain local group" does change between a domain in
mixed vs native mode.
GT
- Original Message -
From: "Salandra, Justin A." <[EMAIL PRO
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
