[gptalk] Re: Adding additional trusted sites

  • From: "mike kline" <mkline@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: gptalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:36:29 -0400

That definitely helps Darren, thanks a lot!!!  I've been experiencing some
of the issues in the lab.  Exactly like you stated below.

Thanks
Mike

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Darren Mar-Elia <darren@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>  Mike-
>
> The 2 different areas don't necessarily play well together and also don't
> work the way you'd like. My experience is that that Admin Templates approach
> will completely override the IE Maintenance zones that you've added. Also,
> unlike IE maintenance, the Admin. Templates, once set, will not allow the
> user to add any additional site-to-zone assignments. So, depending upon your
> requirements, I would stick with one approach throughout.
>
>
>
> HTH,
>
>
> Darren
>
>
>
> *From:* gptalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gptalk-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] *On
> Behalf Of *mike kline
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:15 PM
> *To:* gptalk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> *Subject:* [gptalk] Adding additional trusted sites
>
>
>
> I'm going to try and test this scenario in my lab but wanted to check to
> see if anyone else has run into this.
>
>
>
> In production we currently have a few trusted sites defined using:
>
>
>
>    - User Configuration\Windows Settings\Internet Explorer
>    Maintenance\Security\Security Zones and Content Ratings
>
>
>
> I want to add a few additional trusted sites.  What I was thinking was to
> just add the new sites using
>
>
>
>    - User Configuration\Administrative Templates\Windows
>    components\Internet Explorer\Internet Control Panel\Security Page\Site to
>    zone assignment list.
>
>
>
> What I'm hoping is that the new trusted sites are added to the previously
> defined trusted sites.
>
>
>
> What do you all think about that approach?  I was also thinking of
> importing again via IE maintenance but just adding the new sites using site
> to zone assignments seems easier.
>
>
>
> We are not using GPPE yet.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Mike
>

Other related posts: