Wouldn't a t-shirt about defending security infrastructures with Darth Tandon on it be more fun?
-----Original Message----- From: "Susan Bradley, CPA aka Ebitz - SBS Rocks [MVP]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:39 To:ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: Re: [ActiveDir][OT]Dean's kick-a## article Are said TShirts for sale? I can envision the next MVP summit with a room full of Bretts. (www.cafepress.com .... there can be a Brett Store with Brett merchandise) Brett Shirley wrote: > Ego isn't wearing a t-shirt with your own picture on it, ego is insisting > others wear a t-shirt with your picture on it ... > > So was that it, Dean? Were you conceding my point, I couldn't tell (like > maybe the "okey dokes" was like "whatever", blow brett off) ... or do you > still feel this is all database specific implementation detail? As > opposed to my posistion that this is directory service implementation > detail (for AD in the dblayer of the DS)? A directory service needs this > in order to function correctly across regular replication scopes. > > Cheers, > BrettSh > > On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Dean Wells wrote: > > >>> Maybe I can help w/ the ego (after all I consider trimming Dean's ego >>> one of my higher callings in life ;-) ... >>> >> Remain focused on your own for now. Once you no longer feel the need to >> wear t-shirts with your own face on them, you can probably rest assured that >> you're safe to begin on mine ;0) >> >> ... uhhh, okey dokes :0/ >> >> -- >> Dean Wells >> MSEtechnology >> t Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://msetechnology.com >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ActiveDir- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Brett Shirley >>> Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:12 AM >>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>> Cc: Send - AD mailing list >>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT]Dean's kick-a## article >>> >>> Maybe I can help w/ the ego (after all I consider trimming Dean's ego >>> one of my higher callings in life ;-) ... >>> >>> Dean, you said you didn't mind if we continued to discuss this thread >>> at one point (a at the time highly volatile thread, which I decided to >>> let settle down), do you remember this thread: >>> >>> http://www.mail- >>> archive.com/activedir@mail.activedir.org/msg32470.html >>> >>> Where I think you basically conveyed (IMNHO) I didn't know what I was >>> talking about in regards to what is required for a DS implementation >>> ... >>> >>> >From your two emails in that thread, first you said: >>> >>> >>>> ... that the process of injecting the phantom isn't a behavioral >>>> requirement imposed or carried out by the directory service itself. >>>> It is a requirement imposed by the underlying database and is >>>> necessary because of the mechanism used by ESE to provide uniform >>>> representation of object references (i.e. link pairs). >>>> >>> Then in a subsequent email: >>> >>> >>>> Nod, I understand your point but, to me, it's a matter of perspective >>>> -- where does the directory begin and end? From a developers >>>> standpoint, the directory may well be a whole component neatly >>>> organized into a single area of a source tree. From my perspective, >>>> the term directory (in this context) is used to relay the concept of >>>> >>> a >>> >>>> (mostly) standards based component with predictable features, >>>> interfaces, behaviors, structures, underlying mechanisms, etc. >>>> >>> Any directory service has a form of the infrastructure master DN- >>> cleanup problem, when the "cross-reference" spans replication scopes, >>> irregardless of underlying database technology, ESE, or SQL Server, or >>> anything else you can think of. If they seemingly don't have this >>> problem, then there is some form of replication happening and thus the >>> DN isn't really crossing replication scopes (that's why the GC doesn't >>> have this problem ... as you pointed out in part 1 of the article). >>> >>> So I'd argue the last 2 lines in the first quote were wrong in two >>> ways: >>> (A) ESE doesn't provide uniform representation of object references. >>> That's just patently incorrect. And (B) this isn't an ESE >>> implementation detail, it is a DS implementation detail for being >>> constructed on any kind of database that isn't performing replication >>> (same as SQL, MySQL, BerkleyDB, whatever NDS used, or ESE)? I just >>> want it on record ... >>> 8/17/2005, Dean was wrong once. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> BrettSh >>> ex-Garage Door Operator #7. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, Dean Wells wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Cheeky git . my head, your stomach . at least we'll have the plane to >>>> ourselves! :0) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best start working on that pilot's license! >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dean Wells >>>> MSEtechnology >>>> * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe >>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:09 PM >>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir][OT]Dean's kick-a## article >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hey I sometimes have to ride on planes with that guy, don't swell his >>>> >>> ego >>> >>>> too much... I want to be able to sit on the plane. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> :) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition - >>>> http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _____ >>>> >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha >>>> Weerasinghe >>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 3:02 PM >>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] >>>> >>>> joe said "pretty decent" http://blog.joeware.net/2006/06/08/400/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think thats an understatement ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, my profuse thanks to joe too. I wasnt aware of the article >>>> >>> until he >>> >>>> blogged it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> M@ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/14/06, Dean Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Why thank you . but who said otherwise? ;0) >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Dean Wells >>>> MSE technology >>>> * Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> http://msetechnology.com <http://msetechnology.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matheesha >>>> Weerasinghe >>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 2:35 PM >>>> >>>> >>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid1_gci1192 >>> 821,0 >>> >>>> 0.html?track=NL-463 >>>> >>>> >>> <http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/originalContent/0,289142,sid1_gci119 >>> 2821, >>> >>>> 00.html?track=NL-463&ad=554811USCA&ad=554808> >>>> >>> &ad=554811USCA&ad=554808 >>> >>>> >>>> I dont care what anyone says. Thats a damn fine article. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I couldnt possibly thank Dean enough for that info. >>>> >>>> M@ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 8/14/06, Graham Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Alter ego ! >>>> >>>> my thanks are due >>>> >>>> worked out a treat - so the GC's are not so ***'d as i thought >>>> >>>> any info on the concept of the phantoms though ?? >>>> >>>> GT >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hey Robert, >>>>> >>>>> In the article you posted, the registry key is incorrect in the KB >>>>> content. It lists the registry key as: >>>>> HKCU\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Directory >>>>> >>>>> However, the correct registry key is: >>>>> HKCU\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\Directory UI >>>>> >>>>> I've sent a comment to my former employer to ask for them to fix >>>>> >>> the >>> >>>>> article...next time, test it *before* you post! >>>>> >>>>> Your Alter Ego, >>>>> Robert Williams >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>> [mailto: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Williams, >>>> >>>>> Robert >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:28 AM >>>>> To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org >>>>> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] >>>>> >>>>> Hey Graham, >>>>> >>>>> This may not be what you're experiencing, but it could be worth it >>>>> >>> to >>> >>>>> check to see how many members you have in the group(s) in question. >>>>> >>> By >>> >>>>> default, if the group has over 500 members in it, the user icons >>>>> >>> inside >>> >>>>> the group will turn grey. Check out this 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: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Graham Turner >>>> >>>>> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:01 AM >>>>> To: activedir@mail.activedir.org >>>>> Subject: [ActiveDir] >>>>> >>>>> 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 confess to not a full understanding of the issue here -but it >>>>> >>> seems >>> >>>>> this >>>>> relates in some way to GC lookup ?? >>>>> >>>>> i can for sure confirm that the GC port 3268 is open on the GC's >>>>> >>>>> not sure why as the group / user members are in the same domain ? >>>>> >>>>> after the understanding of what is going on here is, of course 'HOW >>>>> >>> DO >>> >>>>> WE FIX' ?? >>>>> >>>>> technet seems to reference a concept of 'phantom clean up task' - a >>>>> process that >>>>> runs on the server running 'INFRASTRUCURE MASTER' fsmo role on a >>>>> scheduled basis to >>>>> resolve the directory issue. >>>>> >>>>> would seem not in this case ? >>>>> >>>>> as a point to note, neither netdiag or dcdiag are coming up with >>>>> >>> nothing >>> >>>>> concliusive >>>>> in this respect. >>>>> >>>>> help as always gladly received >>>>> >>>>> GT >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx >>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx >>>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>>> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx >>>>> >>>>> >>>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>>> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >>> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >>> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx >>> >> >> List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx >> List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx >> List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx >> >> > > List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx > List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx > List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx > > -- Letting your vendors set your risk analysis these days? http://www.threatcode.com If you are a SBSer and you don't subscribe to the SBS Blog... man ... I will hunt you down... http://blogs.technet.com/sbs List info : http://www.activedir.org/List.aspx List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/ListFAQ.aspx List archive: http://www.activedir.org/ml/threads.aspx
