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
-F2F1214C811
D
Weblog: http://msmvps.org/UlfBSimonWeidner
Website: http://www.windowsserverfaq.org
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Saturday, May 20, 2006 6:24 PM
To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp
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
Hmm...then you could add -notonlynotdisabled to return disabled users just to keep with the flow...
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OldCmp questionDate: Fri, 19 May 2006 17:08:03 -0400From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: ActiveDir@mail.activedir.org
+1 for –onlynotdisabled g
Thanks,Brian Desmond
[EMAIL
-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
So, other than the bug reports and requests I have received
previously prior to this email, it is perfect?
Cool.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Friday, November 18, 2005 5:38 PMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [ActiveDir]
OldCmp
Ok, so
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
joeSent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 10:01 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
OldCmp
So, other than the bug reports and requests I have
received previously prior to this email, it is perfect?
Cool.
From: [EMAIL
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: RE: [ActiveDir]
OldCmp
I scanned through the list of current switches and you
appear to already have everything I was going to ask for.
:)
The only item I wasn't 100% certain on was if it can query
lastLogon. I saw references to pwdLastSet and lastLogonTimeStamp.
T
i'm trying to get rid of all those fields except sAMAccountName with perl.
any ideas?
can oldcmp take as input the same file it created to disable accounts?
anyway, i'd like to know how to parse that file in perl and get rid of all the fields except that one and use that file as input to oldcmp
ailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom
KernSent: Monday, October 10, 2005 4:21 AMTo:
ActiveDir@mail.activedir.orgSubject: [spam] Re: [ActiveDir]
oldcmp
i'm trying to get rid of all those fields except sAMAccountName with
perl.
any ideas?
can oldcmp take as input the sam
24 matches
Mail list logo
