dows kerberos environment.
joe
_
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy Teverovsky
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 4:02 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] alternative to ms-DS-Bind-Proxy in W2K3 AD ?
Why second forest ? We are
nd of setup.
Thanks,
Guy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of joe
Sent: Sat 1/29/2005 5:49 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] alternative to ms-DS-Bind-Proxy in W2K3 AD ?
I am trying to understand why you have a second forest for resources at all? Is
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Guy
TeverovskySent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 2:23 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir] alternative to
ms-DS-Bind-Proxy in W2K3 AD ?
Hi
Eric,
Guess what google has
come up with ?
http://blogs.msdn.com/efleis/archive/2004/10/06/2
:31 AM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir]
alternative to ms-DS-Bind-Proxy in W2K3 AD ?
We actually do have this in AD, sorta. :)
The point of bind redirection is allowing
a simple bind to work in such a manner. If you’re open to other sorts of
binds, this works in ADAM w
We actually do have this in AD, sorta. :)
The point of bind redirection is allowing
a simple bind to work in such a manner. If you’re open to other sorts of
binds, this works in ADAM w/o this mechanism. In AD, the same logic applies…..use
a secure bind, and this will work just fine.
Th
