Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 11:06 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I agree that ds-tools lack some possibilities, and I'd prefer MS putting
your tools into their product, however in most scenarios I've been working
in they are not allowed to put additional
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 5:31 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I wouldn't be adverse to seeing at least adfind and admod in
the support or resource kit
?
:)
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B.
Simon-Weidner
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:56 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I
Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:41 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I just
Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ulf B.
Simon-Weidner
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 2:56 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I didn't
-29.57.777
( Mobile : +31-(0)6-26.26.62.80
* E-mail : see sender address
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of joe
Sent: Fri 2006-05-19 21:34
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
Hmm that may work. I will have to send
Disabled accounts are marked by having bit 1 list on userAccountControl
(value 2)
To exclude them you want -af useraccountcontrol:AND:=2 and -bit
I just realized I have an -onlydisabled switch, I should add a
-onlynotdisabled I guess...
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
hmmm
How about -onlyenabled? :)
Ya know...just because...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:41:21 -0400 Disabledaccountsaremarkedbyhavingbit1listonuserAccountControl (value2
, 2006 2:36 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp
question
hmmmHow about -onlyenabled?
:)Ya know...just
because...
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp
question Date: Fri, 19 May 2006 11:41:21 -0400
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
Disabled accounts are marked by having bit 1 list on userAccountControl
(value 2)
To exclude them you want -af useraccountcontrol:AND:=2 and -bit
I just realized I have an -onlydisabled switch, I should add a
-onlynotdisabled
OK cool. If you add the -onlyenabled switch, that would be REALLY cool! :)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of joe
Sent: Fri 5/19/2006 2:41 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I just realized I told you how
+1 for onlynotdisabled g
Thanks,
Brian Desmond
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
c - 312.731.3132
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 3:34 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
PROTECTED]
c - 312.731.3132
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joeSent: Friday, May 19, 2006 3:34 PMTo: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
Hmm that may work. I will have to send it into the design committee and see what
-af "(!(ourProperty=TRUE))"
It would be more efficient and faster for the query to
actually set all of the non-service accounts to FALSE so then you can
do
-af "(ourProperty=FALSE)"
NOT
filters aren't the greatest for efficiency plus you can get false positives
because an account that
Perhaps -af (!(ourProperty=TRUE))
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rimmerman, Russ
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 3:32 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I've
created a new boolean schema property to flag all
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp
question
-af "(!(ourProperty=TRUE))"
It would be more efficient and faster for the query to
actually set all of the non-service accounts to FALSE so then you can
do
-af "(ourProperty=FALSE)"
NOT
filters aren't the greatest for eff
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rimmerman, Russ
Sent: Tuesday, 16 May 2006 8:38 a.m.
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp question
I
ended up using
oldcmp -report
-age 120 -users -f
((objectcategory=person)(objectclass=user)(!(ourAttribute
://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tony
MurraySent: Monday, May 15, 2006 5:24 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp
question
Hi
Russ
Just out of idle
curiosity, I would be interested to know why you
re.net/win/ad3e.htm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rimmerman,
RussSent: Monday, May 15, 2006 4:38 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp
question
I ended up using
oldcmp -report -age 120
-users -f "((objectcategory=person)(o
19 matches
Mail list logo
