On Fri, 27 Jul 2012 13:45:36 -0500 Kent West <we...@acu.edu> wrote: > > The domain is a Windows Active Directory domain (if that's a sensible > description), and it used to be named ACU, but then we moved to a new > Active Directory setup, starting from scratch because the ACU AD > Domain had too many problems in it to migrate (as I understand > things), so they created a new domain, named ACU.LOCAL and/or > ACULOCAL (because Windows 7 (or Windows XP) can (or can't) handle a > dot in the name, whereas Window XP (or Windows 7) can't (or can)).
No, both can without any problem. Windows NT couldn't deal with dotted domain names, but everything since then can. AD is based on LDAP, and can use multiple dc=... components in the domain name. AD has been around since Windows 2000, so XP was aware of it from the beginning, and XP Pro could be an AD domain client. > I > suspect that "local" was not the best name that could have been > chosen... (but I'm not a network admin, much less an AD admin, so > what do I know?). > It's recommended by Microsoft for domains which do not handle their own public DNS (i.e. just about all businesses), because if you use the public email domain (or any valid domain name) internally it means you jump through extra DNS hoops to reach external resources on the same domain. Also, email domains are often changed, and once an AD domain name (or domain controller hostname) is set, it is forever in stone. There are third-party tools that can allegedly change either after installation, but they are not recommended for use on a server running Exchange, so nobody has much faith in them. It is, after all, only a global search-and-replace on an LDAP directory (and registry..), but on a truly epic scale, and nobody trusts that nothing will come unglued. -- Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120727232214.110ec...@jretrading.com
