As a wise man continues to say...
"There are seldom good technological solutions to
behavioural problems"
;) Enjoy...
themolk.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Frank
AbagnaleSent: Saturday, 4 February 2006 8:28 AMTo:
Right, but if you have several remote sites in the US with a total of
150 users connected via site T1's to one Exchange server in Toronto
(Canada)? Cached mode is pretty much necessary.
...D
On 2/3/06, Navroz Shariff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would highly discourage against using cached mode
Nod, thanks for the confirmation ... I stand corrected Susan.
Out of interested Brian, what do you use for wireless? I'm certain it
required a cert. that I couldn't obtain since that in turn required domain
membership?
As to the original question, 802.1x remains a viable solution. I've not
Edwin, I'm sure you've noticed by now but joe and Brian (both) have given you a really good idea of what you need to do to solve this. As indicated, to achieve your goal of preventing any unauthorized access to the network, you'd pretty much have to have control at the phys layer. By that I mean
As somebody earlier mentioned, Cisco has
the Port Security option on their switches, if you happen to be running a Cisco
network.
Once a device is plugged in, only that
device can use the port. Unplug it and plug something else in and the port
shuts down.
In the same vein, Cisco has
I like two approaches: 802.1x+NAP or generalize VPN (with NAP), especially
for companies who frequently have guests in their network.
NAP as implemented today in VPN is not about security, it's about health
checking. Somebody who want's to get into the network would be able to do so
if he's
Thanks everyone for your replies. I
can see that I have a lot of discussion to look forward to with the network
engineers. I definitely have enough information to get me started in
making a good decision.
If only Longhorn and Vista
were released already then it would seem as though my
W2k3 sp1 fully patched single DC with Exch 2k3 sp2.
I have recently removed 17 exemplyees and and migrated 15 to a new
division, separate box and domain. This represented about 17GB in PSTs
from the exmerge. Our database has gone from 16GB two years ago when we
migrated from 5.5 to exch 2k3 to
Oops wrong list
-Original Message-
From: Craig A. Mills
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 4:05 PM
To: 'ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org'
Subject: Eseutil /d error -1022
W2k3 sp1 fully patched single DC with Exch 2k3 sp2.
I have recently removed 17 exemplyees and and migrated 15 to a
