Re: ou=Addressbook vs ou=People ?

[Adam Williams <awilliam@whitemice.org>]

>I'm sure the addressbook topic have been beatin to death.. 

To a smooth paste, yes.

>I just want to get some thoughts about how i should proceed 
>with setting up our Corp. Addressbook.  I have gotten email 
>clients to be able to lookup employee's addresses via outlook 
>and netscape (still fumbling with mozilla 1.x). Now, currently 

Congrats!  I've seen people claim that was impossible!  Although it worked 
out-a-the-box for me.

>all we have is ou=People, But i have seen references to 
>ou=Addressbook. Should i create entries and put them under 
>Addressbook also? or is it ok just to leave it the way it is?  
>Why is it better for to put it under Addressbook rather than 
>keeping it "asis"?

The structure of your Dit is pretty much up to you,  there are just some 
conventions like ou=People, ou=Groups, etc....  

Personally I think ou=Addressbook is dumb.  Objects that are people belong 
under ou=People,  objects that are groups belong under ou=Groups, etc...  
objectclass will dither out the separate types,  there is no need to 
create a zillion ou=s and eventually result in complete confusion about 
what objects go (or come from) where.  Things like ou=Addressbook 
eventually seem to result in duplicated data; has to be both here and 
there, etc...  Just my two cents.