It made the move but I feel traffic has dropped off a bit.
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Sam Cayze
sca...@gmail.commailto:sca...@gmail.com wrote:
I wasn't sure if the Exchange List made it over to ITForum :) (Or exists at
all anymore). And it seemed (at the time), simple
We have several mailboxes that have had more than 1,000 proxy addresses for
many years and have had no issues.
Best,
James Rupprecht
Enterprise IT Architect, Microsoft Technologies
The University of Kansas
- Original Message -
On Sep 4, 2013, at 6:47 PM, Sam
I'm seeing this issue everywhere and can't solve it except by disabling My
Documents Folder Redirection - which in a XenApp thin client environment is
really a non-starter, I think
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2816253/en-us?sd=rssspid=13615
Goddamn MS. They issue an article and the same day I
I'd love to know. All I know is I have 500 users wanting to open Office
documents who can't, and they could a couple of weeks ago when I was last
here.
Something has clearly happened somewhere. it's not like no-one uses Folder
Redirection for Documents much.
On 5 September 2013 13:29, Kennedy,
FWIW, I ran for *years* with both desktop and my documents redirected to a
UNC location with Office 2003 working just fine. We did upgrade to later
versions of course, and I'm no longer in that environment so I can't
provide further info. I can't imagine running any Windows environment
without
You also get the same issue if you disable the redirection and use a GPO to
point the default file location to the network path.
This sucks, big time
On 5 September 2013 13:52, Jeff Steward jstew...@gmail.com wrote:
FWIW, I ran for *years* with both desktop and my documents redirected to a
Can you get emergency approval to upgrade Office? 2003 is EOL in April..
From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On
Behalf Of James Rankin
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 9:25 AM
To: ntsysadm@lists.myitforum.com
Subject: Re: [NTSysADM] Be afraid
You
It's 2010 and 2003 I'm seeing the same issue on.
On 5 September 2013 14:27, Kennedy, Jim kennedy...@elyriaschools.orgwrote:
Can you get emergency approval to upgrade Office? 2003 is EOL in April……
** **
*From:* listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:
He is a DBA not a AD administrator, but I see your reasoning and logic...
Z
Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-255-2497
This electronic message and any attachments may be privileged and confidential
and
Yeah I agree SQL on a DC is pretty insane, unless they only had 1 box for
domain and had to host it on the system..
Z
Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-255-2497
This electronic message and any attachments
I think I may have a handle on the issue..update may be coming soon...
On 5 September 2013 14:41, Kennedy, Jim kennedy...@elyriaschools.orgwrote:
Woa. We are mostly 2010 here, not seeing that issue at all. I am a
little behind on server updates, fwiw.
** **
*From:*
I take it that the workarounds aren't helping?
*ASB
**http://XeeMe.com/AndrewBaker* http://xeeme.com/AndrewBaker*
**Providing Virtual CIO Services (IT Operations Information Security) for
the SMB market…***
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:22 AM, James Rankin kz2...@googlemail.com wrote:
I'm
I seem to think it was from this list that helped me decide to no use Global
groups in AD but I have an SE pointing me to MS articles and it looks like I
should be using Global instead on Universal, - currently I use Domain local and
Universal groups, but we're pretty small (600-users) and have
Universal is typically used more for inter-forest ACL's IIRC. Reason #1 I
can think of for Global vs. Uni is your GC's have to replicate any change
to Uni group membership.
This probably explains it better than I did:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/231273
That said for your size, and the
Oh yeah, I ass u med you didn't have one forest in Zimbabwe.
- WJR
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Kennedy, Jim
kennedy...@elyriaschools.orgwrote:
Based on your size…assuming you don’t have a slow link between two
DC’s……stick with Universal.
** **
*From:*
Good Afternoon
Full Disclosure: I am a software engineer so I understand generally this field
but I am not as well versed in the particulars as you guys are. A friend who
owns a very large dairy has broadband coming into one building and would like
to beam wireless to their house across the
Id go Global.
Z
Edward E. Ziots, CISSP, CISA, Security +, Network +
Security Engineer
Lifespan Organization
ezi...@lifespan.org
Work:401-255-2497
This electronic message and any attachments may be privileged and confidential
and protected from disclosure. If you are reading this message, but
In your scenario I would think that either would work and neither will
give you any problems. Issues that may cause problems are replication
traffic if you are talking about large numbers of groups (which I don't
think is the case here). Or if you need the flexibility that Universal
groups
1. Please start a new unique thread, and not reply-to (aka hijack) an
existing one.
2. Please don't include political messages in your signature. This is a
large list, and will only attract conflict to or avoidance of your posts.
3. In simplest terms: If you can establish clear line of site
As disgusting as I think this is, I can't help but think about how many
conflicts have been won due to codebreaking enemy communications. A step
back in time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer
--
Espi
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Richard Stovall rich...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Check out the Ubiquiti NanoBridge or NanoStation M5 (5.8Ghz) or M2 (2.4Ghz)
units. Easy to configure and sub $100 each. Set one unit as an AP, other as a
Station and enable WDS (Transparent Bridge Mode), add the other necessary
settings and encryption key and you are good to go.
Wow: Recommendation #1, use TOR. And here I thought the darknet was only
gonna be for thieves and pedophiles...
--
Espi
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Kurt Buff kurt.b...@gmail.com wrote:
Here's what you probably haven't seen, and it's IMNSHO better
coverage. What Bruce has to say is
22 matches
Mail list logo
