Search Results

Search found 11313 results on 453 pages for 'rampant creative group'.

Page 147/453 | < Previous Page | 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154  | Next Page >

• Preventing 'Reply-All' to Exchange Distribution Groups

  - by Larold

  This is another question in a short series regarding a challenging Exchange project my co-workers have been asked to implement. (I'm helping even though I'm primarily a Unix guy because I volunteered to learn powershell and implement as much of the project in code as I could.) Background: We have been asked to create many distribution groups, say about 500+. These groups will contain two types of members. (Apologies if I get these terms wrong.) One type will be internal AD users, and the other type will be external users that I create Mail Contact entries for. We have been asked to make it so that a "Reply All" is not possible to any messages sent to these groups. I don't believe that is 100% possible to enforce for the following reasons. My question is - is my following reasoning sound? If not, please feel free to educate me on if / how things can properly be implemeneted. Thanks! My reasoning on why it's impossible to prevent 100% of potential reply-all actions: An interal AD user could put the DL in their To: field. They then click the '+' to expand the group. The group contains two external mail contacts. The message is sent to everyone, including those external contacts. External user #1 decides to reply-all, and his mail goes to, at least, external user #2, which wouldn't even involve our Exchange mail relays. An internal AD user could place the DL in their Outlook To: field, then click the '+' button to expand the DL. They then fire off an email to everyone that was in the group. (But the individual addresses are listed in the 'To:' field.) Because we now have a message sent to multiple recipients in the To: field, the addresses have been "exposed", and anyone is free to reply-all, and the messages just get sent to everyone in the To: field. Even if we try to set a Reply-To: field for all of these DLs, external mail clients are not obligated to abide by it, or force users to abide by it. Are my two points above valid? (I admit, they are somewhat similar.) Am I correct to tell our leadership "It is not possible to prevent 100% of the cases where someone will want to Reply-All to these groups UNLESS we train the users sending emails to these groups that the Bcc: field is to be used at all times." I am dying for any insight or parts of the equation I'm not seeing clearly. Thank you!!!

  Read the article

• Creating a new Active Directory account with an InfoPath form

  - by ryan

  I am setting up a business partner portal in our Sharepoint server. There will be an AD group with permissions limited to viewing and possibly contributing to the specific business partner site and employees of our business partners will have accounts created for them as needed. Now we would like to let our business development group(BDG) have control over the partner accounts. Ideally they should be able to add and delete accounts and change permissions on them. The BDG are not domain admins so we don't want to give them access to the domain controller. We want to create an Infopath form that will allow them to do all this. Is it possible to create and manage AD accounts from within an Infopath form on the sharepoint server? I searched this site and MSDN and can not find anything specifically related to my question.

  Read the article

• ASA firewalls: how does stateful filtering affect my access lists?

  - by Nate

  Ok, so assume that I have an ingress access list that looks like this: access-list outside_in extended ip permit any X.Y.Z.1 eq 25 access-group outside_in in interface outside And I want to do egress filtering. I want to allow inside machines to respond on port 80, and I want to allow ports over 1024. Given that the firewall is statefull, do I need to have the rule access-list inside_in extended ip permit X.Y.Z.1 any eq 25 in my inside_in ACL, or can I get away with just access-list inside_in extended ip permit any any gt 1024 access-group inside_in in interface inside In other words, if I apply an egress access list, do I have to explicitly allow machines to respond to requests allowed by the ingress access list, or does the statefullness of the firewall handle that for me? Thanks!

  Read the article

• Mercurial says hgrc is untrusted in Emacs, but works fine from the command line

  - by Ken

  I've got some Mercurial checkouts in a directory that was mounted by root. Mercurial is usually suspicious of files that aren't mine, but I'm the only user here, so I put: [trusted] users = root groups = root in my ~/.hgrc, and now I can use hg from the command line with no warnings or errors about anything being untrusted. So far, great. But when I try to run, say, vc-annotate in Emacs, I get an Annotate buffer that says: abort: unknown revision 'Not trusting file /home/me/.../working-copy/.hg/hgrc from untrusted user root, group root Not trusting file /home/me/.../working-copy/.hg/hgrc from untrusted user root, group root 7648'! The message area says: Running hg annotate -d -n --follow -r... my-file.c...FAILED (status 255) I don't have anything in my .emacs related to vc or hg. Other commands, like vc-diff, work fine. What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• Authentication Order with SSH

  - by Oz123

  i am still have troubles mastering sshd - when I login with -v I see that ssh is authenticating the following way debug1: Authentications that can continue: publickey,gssapi-with-mic,password,hostbased I would like to change the order ... any idea how ? My bigger problem is that user with locked accounts, can still login via public-keys. I have found that I could add the user to a group "ssh-locked" add deny that group from sshing, but I am still wondering if there is a way to tell ssh'd : Please check password before keys ... Thanks, Oz

  Read the article

• Windows Server 2008 R2 permissions: Users can't write despite being administrators

  - by Matias Nino

  We just set up a new R2 server and created a bunch of local user accounts on it that are part of the administrator's group. We then set permissions on some shares and folders to allow FULL CONTROL to anyone from the administrator's group. However, the users cannot write to these folders when logged on. On some folders on the C:\ they are prompted for consent in order to gain permission to read them. Any ideas? Are there any tools that would help me troubleshoot this? Thanks in advance for any tips.

  Read the article

• ASA 5505 Vlan question

  - by Wayne

  I am setting up a cisco asa 5505 with the base license. I can communicate from inside-outside, outside-inside, inside-home, which is my desired traffic security. I can get http, ssh, and other access from inside-home, but I can't ping from inside-home (192.168.110.0 host to 192.168.7.1 or 192.168.7.0 host). Can someone explain. My config is listed below interface Vlan1<br> nameif inside<br> security-level 100<br> ip address 192.168.110.254 255.255.255.0 <br> !<br> interface Vlan2<br> nameif outside<br> security-level 0<br> pppoe client vpdn group birdie<br> ip address removedIP 255.255.255.255 pppoe <br> !<br> interface Vlan3<br> no forward interface Vlan1<br> nameif home<br> security-level 50<br> ip address 192.168.7.1 255.255.255.0 <br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/0<br> switchport access vlan 2<br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/1<br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/2<br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/3<br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/4<br> switchport access vlan 3<br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/5<br> shutdown <br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/6<br> shutdown <br> ! <br> interface Ethernet0/7<br> shutdown <br> ! <br> ftp mode passive<br> clock timezone EST -5<br> clock summer-time EDT recurring<br> access-list Outside-In extended permit icmp any any <br> access-list Outside-In extended permit tcp any any eq www <br> access-list Outside-In extended permit tcp any any eq https <br> access-list Outside-In extended permit tcp any any eq 5969 <br> access-list inside_nat0_outbound extended permit ip any 192.168.111.0 255.255.255.224 <br> access-list standardUser_splitTunnelAcl1 extended permit ip 192.168.111.0 255.255.255.0 any <br> access-list standardUser_splitTunnelAcl1 extended permit ip 192.168.110.0 255.255.255.0 <br>any access-list inside_in extended permit icmp any any <br> access-list inside_in extended permit ip any any <br> access-list home_in extended permit icmp any any <br> access-list home_in extended permit ip any any <br> pager lines 24<br> logging enable<br> logging asdm informational<br> mtu inside 1492<br> mtu outside 1492<br> mtu home 1500 <br> ip local pool vpnuser 192.168.111.5-192.168.111.20<br> icmp unreachable rate-limit 1 burst-size 1<br> asdm image disk0:/asdm-524.bin<br> no asdm history enable<br> arp timeout 14400<br> nat-control <br> global (outside) 1 interface<br> nat (inside) 0 access-list inside_nat0_outbound<br> nat (inside) 1 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0<br> nat (home) 1 192.168.7.0 255.255.255.0<br> static (inside,outside) tcp interface https 192.168.110.6 https netmask 255.255.255.255 <br> static (inside,outside) tcp interface www 192.168.110.6 www netmask 255.255.255.255 <br> static (inside,outside) tcp interface 5969 192.168.110.12 5969 netmask 255.255.255.255 <br> static (inside,home) 192.168.110.0 192.168.110.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 <br> access-group inside_in in interface inside<br> access-group Outside-In in interface outside<br> access-group home_in in interface home<br> route outside 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 RemovedIP 1<br>

  Read the article

• Secure Apache PHP vhost configuration

  - by jsimmons

  I'm looking to secure some websites running under apache using suexec. At the moment php is executed with the user/group of the file being executed. This seems to me, not secure enough. It stops vhosts interfering with each other, but does not stop malicious code writing anywhere in the vhost being used. I was thinking that a possibility would be to run scripts as nobody/vhost group, that way the vhost user could still have full access to the vhost directories, but executing php would only be able to write to files with g+w, and to execute files with g+x. This I think should stop arbitrary writing in the web dir from compromised php. Just wondering if this is crazy, ridiculous, stupid? Of course this would be done on top of existing security measures.

  Read the article

• assign, not toggle, category

  - by Hemal Pandya

  The Home/Categorize option in ribbon on Outlook 2010 toggles categories. If a group of mails is selected where some of the mails already have the selected category assigned then the action removes the category from those mails and assigns to the rest. I view mails grouped by conversation and would like to repeatedly assign a category to all mails in the group. I can clear all categories before assigning, but that would work only if the mails have only one category assigned. Ideally, I would like to change the behavior of the existing button. If not, a different menu option or shortcut. Is there a way to do either of this?

  Read the article

• How to configure auto-logon in Active Directory

  - by Jonas Stensved

  I need to improve our account management (using Active Directory) for a customer support site with 50+ computers. The default "AD"-way is to give each user their own account. This adds up with a lot of administration with adding/disabling/enabling user accounts. To avoid this supervisors have started to use shared "general" accounts like domain\callcenter2 etc and I don't like the idea of everyone knowing and sharing accounts and passwords. Our ideal solution would be to create a group with computers which requires no login by the user. I.e. the users just have to start the computer. Should I configure auto-logon with a single user account like domain\agentAccount? Is there anything else to consider if I use the same account for all users? How do I configure the actual auto-logon with a GPO on the group? Is there a "Microsoft way" without 3rd party plugins? Or is there a better solution?

  Read the article

• Any way to recover ext4 filesystems from a deleted LVM logical volume?

  - by Vegar Nilsen

  The other day I had a proper brain fart moment while expanding a disk on a Linux guest under Vmware. I stretched the Vmware disk file to the desired size and then I did what I usually do on Linux guests without LVM: I deleted the LVM partition and recreated it, starting in the same spot as the old one, but extended to the new size of the disk. (Which will be followed by fsck and resize2fs.) And then I realized that LVM doesn't behave the same way as ext2/3/4 on raw partitions... After restoring the Linux guest from the most recent backup (taken only five hours earlier, luckily) I'm now curious on how I could have recovered from the following scenario. It's after all virtually guaranteed that I'll be a dumb ass in the future as well. Virtual Linux guest with one disk, partitioned into one /boot (primary) partition (/dev/sda1) of 256MB, and the rest in a logical, extended partition (/dev/sda5). /dev/sda5 is then setup as a physical volume with pvcreate, and one volume group (vgroup00) created on top of it with the usual vgcreate command. vgroup00 is then split into two logical volumes root and swap, which are used for / and swap, logically. / is an ext4 file system. Since I had backups of the broken guest I was able to recreate the volume group with vgcfgrestore from the backup LVM setup found under /etc/lvm/backup, with the same UUID for the physical volume and all that. After running this I had two logical volumes with the same size as earlier, with 4GB free space where I had stretched the disk. However, when I tried to run "fsck /dev/mapper/vgroup00-root" it complained about a broken superblock. I tried to locate backup superblocks by running "mke2fs -n /dev/mapper/vgroup00-root" but none of those worked either. Then I tried to run TestDisk but when I asked it to find superblocks it only gave an error about not being able to open the file system due to a broken file system. So, with the default allocation policy for LVM2 in Ubuntu Server 10.04 64-bit, is it possible that the logical volumes are allocated from the end of the volume group? That would definitely explain why the restored logical volumes didn't contain the expected data. Could I have recovered by recreating /dev/sda5 with exactly the same size and disk position as earlier? Are there any other tools I could have used to find and recover the file system? (And clearly, the question is not whether or not I should have done this in a different way from the start, I know that. This is a question about what to do when shit has already hit the fan.)

  Read the article

• Groups and Symlinks, is this safe?

  - by sjohns

  Hi, Im trying to serve similar content over two websites, but don't want to have 2 of each file, especially when they are growing. The basics, im running CentOS, with cPanel. Is it safe to do the following, I have folder downloads1 in /home/user1/www/downloads1/ i have user2, can i make a group - groupadd sharedfiles add both users to the group: useradd -g sharedfiles user1 useradd -g sharedfiles user2 then chown -r -v user1:sharedfiles downloads1/ User 2 i want to have /home/user2/www/downloads1 but i want it to be a symlink like ln "downloads1" "/home/user1/www/downloads1/" lrwxrwxrwx 1 user2 sharedfiles 11 May 9 14:20 downloads1 -> /home/user1/www/downloads1/ Is this a safe practice? Or is there a better way to do this if I want them both to be able to share the files for distribution over apache. Is there any drawbacks to this? Thanks in advance for any light shed on this. I'm not 100% sure weather this should have gone here or on serverfault.

  Read the article

• Groups and Symlinks, is this safe?

  - by sjohns

  Hi, Im trying to serve similar content over two websites, but don't want to have 2 of each file, especially when they are growing. The basics, im running CentOS, with cPanel. Is it safe to do the following, I have folder downloads1 in /home/user1/www/downloads1/ i have user2, can i make a group - groupadd sharedfiles add both users to the group: useradd -g sharedfiles user1 useradd -g sharedfiles user2 then chown -r -v user1:sharedfiles downloads1/ User 2 i want to have /home/user2/www/downloads1 but i want it to be a symlink like ln "downloads1" "/home/user1/www/downloads1/" lrwxrwxrwx 1 user2 sharedfiles 11 May 9 14:20 downloads1 -> /home/user1/www/downloads1/ Is this a safe practice? Or is there a better way to do this if I want them both to be able to share the files for distribution over apache. Is there any drawbacks to this? Thanks in advance for any light shed on this. I'm not 100% sure weather this should have gone here or on serverfault.

  Read the article

• restrict windows remote desktop

  - by radioactive21

  Is there any way to prevent users from launching and using remote desktop and to restrict it to only local admins or domain admins? The reason being is that we do not want users to remote desktop home, but at the same time we want it to be available to certain users like administrators or power users. Ideally there is a group policy that can be set to groups or users who have access to the remote desktop application from their machine. Clarifications: I need the machine to be able to still have remote desktop work, just only with a specific user or group. The point is that we allow certain users to use remote desktop and others to not have access to it. There are machines where there are multiple users, so we cant just block a whole machine or by IP. This needs to be done per a user account or login.

  Read the article

• Can send to individual users but not when they are in a global distribution list.

  - by Jake

  I am able to send email to individual users but when not when they are in a distribution group. When I do I get this report. The message could not be delivered because the recipient's destination email system is unknown or invalid. Please check the address and try again, or contact your system administrator to verify connectivity to the email system of the recipient. #5.3.1 However, like I said before I can select their name from the GAL and send mail that way. Their email address is exactly the same in both the GAL and distribution group. The only difference is these users have external email addresses. Windows Server 2003 Exchange Server 2003 Outlook 2007 and 2010.

  Read the article

• Stuck on Login PhpMyAdmin

  - by TMP

  Hi. I've isntalled phpmyadmin via apt-get. I've set the apache env-vars to the correct user:group. I've set ownership of /etc/apache2 and /etc/phpmyadmin to this user:group. I've restarted both apache2 and mysql several times. My Problem: When I access [ServerIP]/phpmyadmin I get the login screen, I enter the information, and i'm right back at the login screen, with not even an error "permission denied" or "password wrong" or whatever. The only things thats different is the URL: Instead of the Original http://[ServerIP]/phpmyadmin/index.php I am now at http://[ServerIP]/phpmyadmin/index.php?token=[Long Hex string here] However, still the login dialog. My Question: How Do I fix this?

  Read the article

• A proper way to create non-interactive accounts?

  - by AndreyT

  In order to use password-protected file sharing in a basic home network I want to create a number of non-interactive user accounts on a Windows 8 Pro machine in addition to the existing set of interactive accounts. The users that corresponds to those extra accounts will not use this machine interactively, so I don't want their accounts to be available for logon and I don't want their names to appear on welcome screen. In older versions of Windows Pro (up to Windows 7) I did this by first creating the accounts as members of "Users" group, and then including them into "Deny logon locally" list in Local Security Policy settings. This always had the desired effect. However, my question is whether this is the right/best way to do it. The reason I'm asking is that even though this method works in Windows 8 Pro as well, it has one little quirk: interactive users from "User" group are still able to see these extra user names when they go to the Metro screen and hit their own user name in the top-right corner (i.e. open "Sign out/Lock" menu). The command list that drops out contains "Sign out" and "Lock" commands as well as the names of other users (for "switch user" functionality). For some reason that list includes the extra users from "Deny logon locally" list. It is interesting to note that this happens when the current user belongs to "Users" group, but it does not happen when the current user is from "Administrators". For example, let's say I have three accounts on the machine: "Administrator" (from "Administrators", can logon locally), "A" (from "Users", can logon locally), "B" (from "Users", denied logon locally). When "Administrator" is logged in, he can only see user "A" listed in his Metro "Sign out/Lock" menu, i.e. all works as it should. But when user "A" is logged in, he can see both "Administrator" and user "B" in his "Sign out/Lock" menu. Expectedly, in the above example trying to switch from user "A" to user "B" by hitting "B" in the menu does not work: Windows jumps to welcome screen that lists only "Administrator" and "A". Anyway, on the surface this appears to be an interface-level bug in Windows 8. However, I'm wondering if going through "Deny logon locally" setting is the right way to do it in Windows 8. Is there any other way to create a hidden non-interactive user account?

  Read the article

• Different buddy lists for different accounts in iChat

  - by Idlecool

  I have currently 4 accounts added to iChat, Standard GTalk GTalk For Google Apps Facebook Olark Facebook and Olark have their own Buddy List Group viz. Facebook and WebUser groups and thus those buddies come in a separate list, while the buddies from GTalk and GTalk from Google Apps do not have any group associated with them and they come under Buddies list. It's a bit of a pain because I want to have buddies from GTalk for Google Apps in a separate buddy list than the default one. Is it possible to do it in iChat?

  Read the article

• unable to properly execute binaries from PHP

  - by Lowgain

  I was building an app on a SUSE box, and had a binary called create_group for instance, which had a suid bit and allowed my PHP app to call exec('create group grpname'); and create a new group (there are others for users, etc). The binary was a small c script that calls setuid(0) and then runs the user creation stuff. This worked perfectly on the SUSE box I recently moved my project to Ubuntu and everything works fine except these binaries. I can run them from the shell and they work okay, but when I get the PHP app to run them it just does nothing. Is there anything Ubuntu would be doing differently that I'm missing?

  Read the article

• Add Bookmark to IE automatically for new users on a computer

  - by Kyle Brandt

  When I set up a PC, I would like to be able to have it so when anyone logs into that PC from the domain a couple of IT bookmarks will be in IE. I read I can do this with a Domain-Level group policy, but unfortunately, with my current domain group policies have not gone well, so I have fear (Rather not get into this in this question). Can I do this at the PC level when I deploy a new computer? So any domain users who log into the PC will have these bookmarks added when their profile is created (no roaming profiles). These are XP machines, and the domain is run by 2003 controllers.

  Read the article

• OS X server 10.6 - how to restore default groups?

  - by Zoran Simic

  I've set up my OS X server as an open directory master first, then (experimenting), I've changed it to standalone server, then set it back as an open directory master again. Now, all the default groups I saw before are gone (Domain Administrators, Domain users etc). Do you know how to restore these groups? Note that the groups are gone only from the Workgroup Manager UI. They do seem to be still there otherwise. id -G gives the usual list of groups. If I create an account and makes its primary group 'staff', Workgroup Manager shows all the inherited groups properly (but not on the main list). If I create an account and associate it to a new group I just created, then the account has no inherited groups...

  Read the article

• MSSQL: Choice of service accounts

  - by Troels Arvin

  When installing MS SQL Server 2008, one needs to associate a service account with the installation (possibly even several accounts, one for the SQL Server Agent, one for Analysis Services, ..., but let's leave that for the case of simplicity). The service account may be local account, or a Windows domain account. If a domain account is used: Can MSSQL start, if connectivity to the domain controllers is temporarily down? If the answer is yes: Should each DBMS instance on each server have a separate account, or does it make sense to use a particular "MSSQL" domain account on all MSSQL-installations in the organization? If separate accounts are used for each instance on each server: Does it make sense to create a special MSSQL security group in the domain and place all the MSSQL service accounts in that group, perhaps to ease replication, etc? Is there a common, generally accepted naming convention for MSSQL service account(s)?

  Read the article

• Email client wont connect to SMTP Authentication server

  - by Jason

  Im having trouble installing SMTH Auth for my ubuntu email server. I have followed ubuntu own guide for SMTH AUT (https://help.ubuntu.com/14.04/serverguide/postfix.html). But my email client thunderbird is giving this error " lost connection to SMTP-client 127.0.0.1." I cant add new users to thundbird either because of this connection problem. Do i have to alter any setting on my Thunderbird perhaps since ? I did try to make thunderbird use SSL for imap as well but that neither works. I restarted postfix and dovecot to find errors but both run just fine. Prior to SMTP auth changes thunderbird could connect just fine to my server and send mails. This is my main.cf file in postfix. It looks just like the one on ubuntu guide above. readme_directory = no # TLS parameters #smtpd_use_tls=yes smtpd_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtpd_scache smtp_tls_session_cache_database = btree:${data_directory}/smtp_scache myhostname = mail.mysite.com mydomain = mysite.com alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases alias_database = hash:/etc/aliases myorigin = $mydomain mydestination = mysite.com #relayhost = smtp.192.168.10.1.com mynetworks = 127.0.0.0/8 [::ffff:127.0.0.0]/104 [::1]/128 192.168.10.0/24 mailbox_size_limit = 0 recipient_delimiter = + inet_interfaces = all home_mailbox = Maildir/ mailbox_command = #SMTP AUTH smtpd_sasl_type = dovecot smtpd_recipient_restrictions=permit_mynetworks, permit_sasl_authenticated,reject_unauth_destination smtpd_sasl_local_domain = smtpd_sasl_auth_enable = yes smtpd_sasl_security_options = noanonymous broken_sasl_auth_clients = yes smtpd_tls_auth_only = no smtp_tls_security_level = may smtpd_tls_security_level = may smtp_tls_note_starttls_offer = yes smtpd_tls_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/smtpd.key smtpd_tls_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/smtpd.crt smtpd_tls_CAfile = /etc/ssl/certs/cacert.pem smtpd_tls_loglevel = 1 smtpd_tls_received_header = yes This my dovecot configuration at 10-master.conf service imap-login { inet_listener imap { #port = 143 } inet_listener imaps { #port = 993 #ssl = yes } # Number of connections to handle before starting a new process. Typically # the only useful values are 0 (unlimited) or 1. 1 is more secure, but 0 # is faster. <doc/wiki/LoginProcess.txt> #service_count = 1 # Number of processes to always keep waiting for more connections. #process_min_avail = 0 # If you set service_count=0, you probably need to grow this. #vsz_limit = $default_vsz_limit } service pop3-login { inet_listener pop3 { #port = 110 } inet_listener pop3s { #port = 995 #ssl = yes } } service lmtp { unix_listener lmtp { #mode = 0666 } # Create inet listener only if you can't use the above UNIX socket #inet_listener lmtp { # Avoid making LMTP visible for the entire internet #address = #port = #} } service imap { # Most of the memory goes to mmap()ing files. You may need to increase this # limit if you have huge mailboxes. #vsz_limit = $default_vsz_limit # Max. number of IMAP processes (connections) #process_limit = 1024 } service pop3 { # Max. number of POP3 processes (connections) #process_limit = 1024 } service auth { unix_listener auth-userdb { #mode = 0600 #user = #group = } # Postfix smtp-auth unix_listener /var/spool/postfix/private/auth { mode = 0660 user = postfix } } service dict { # If dict proxy is used, mail processes should have access to its socket. # For example: mode=0660, group=vmail and global mail_access_groups=vmail unix_listener dict { #mode = 0600 #user = #group = } } I did add auth_mechanisms = plain login to 10-auth.conf as well.

  Read the article

• Share in inbox in Google Apps Standard

  - by Saif Bechan

  I have recently signed up for the Standard account of Google apps. In my company I have certain email addresses that are handled by multiple users. For example the support emails are handled by multiple users. Now I have just multiple users log into the same account, but this is not a good practice. It can get quite messy when some emails are handled by different users but on the same email address. Now I looked into the groups option. I have made a group for [email protected], and added all the users to the group. Now everybody gets a copy of the support message sent. But its got a bigger mess because the users don't know who handles which message. Is there some workaround to this so I can make good use of this all in this way.

  Read the article

• One vs. many domain user accounts in a server farm

  - by mjustin

  We are in a migration process of a group of related computers (Intranet servers, SQL, application servers of one application) to a new domain. In the past we used one domain user account for every computer (web1, web2, appserver1, appserver2, sql1, sqlbackup ...) to access central Windows resources like network shares. Every computer also has a local user account with the same name. I am not sure if this is necessary, or if it would be easier to configure and maintain to use one domain user account. Are there key advantages / disadvantages of having one single user account vs. dedicated accounts per computer for this group of background servers? If I am not wrong, one advantage besides easier administration of the user account could be that moving installed applications and services around between the computers does not require a check of the access rights anymore. (Except where IP addresses or ports are used)

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154  | Next Page >