of Chicken
Little in the office, with all my request for additional information.
Todd
-Original Message-
From: Tony Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DNS Records and GC's
Todd
I don't think the delay would
Todd
I don't think the delay would be an LDAP referral (although I've been known to be
wrong before!). The GC contains all the DNS zone objects and DNS node objects in the
forest.
The GC doesn't show the more interesting attributes. Neither dnsProperty (for dnsZone
objects) nor dnsRecord
, with all my request for additional information.
Todd
-Original Message-
From: Tony Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DNS Records and GC's
Todd
I don't think the delay would be an LDAP referral (although
in the office, with all my request for additional information.
Todd
-Original Message-
From: Tony Murray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 1:29 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] DNS Records and GC's
Todd
I don't think the delay would be an LDAP referral
)
Sent: Mon 6/28/2004 11:28 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] DNS Records and GC's
Thanks for the second set of eyes.
I have an Exchange guy that is trying to argue against the inclusion of AD
Integrated DNS zones, because in his POV the number of changes to DNS
records would incur
