RE: exchange 2000 DL's

2001-09-13 Thread Robert Ellis
l Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 2:23 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange 2000 DL's I really don't know that you have to put all that bother into it with sub-ou's of ou's, and such. Afte

RE: exchange 2000 DL's

2001-09-13 Thread Benjamin Winzenz
EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject: RE: exchange 2000 DL's Ok, basically we currently have a co-existence of exchange 5.5 and 2000. The 5.5 side has something like 1400 DL's ranging from 'all at location' to 

RE: exchange 2000 DL's

2001-09-13 Thread Benjamin Winzenz
z, MCSE Network/Systems Administrator Peregrine Systems, Inc. -Original Message- From: Robert Ellis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 8:44 AM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: exchange 2000 DL's Ok, basically we currently have a co-existen

RE: exchange 2000 DL's

2001-09-13 Thread Robert Ellis
MAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Benjamin Winzenz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:36 PM To: Exchange Discussions Subject:RE: exchange 2000 DL's You don't even need to have it be a security group. W2K also supports the cr

RE: exchange 2000 DL's

2001-09-13 Thread Benjamin Winzenz
You don't even need to have it be a security group. W2K also supports the creation of "distribution" groups. These would only be intended for such things as Distribution Lists, as you cannot assign permissions to them, or rather use them to. Once you have E2K installed, you then mail-enable the