Exchange 2003 Native. We have fifty+ sites in our company. I recently could go native 2003 and was excited tocreate a Query-Based Distribution Group (QBDG) to include the DLs from each site. Created it using Custom Attribute 9 with value 'INCLUDE', created filter for that and it does not pick up any of them (I put the value in a couple of localDLs here to test before rolling it out). I made sure the scope was correct and I made sure the target DLs were, in fact, DLs instead of security groups. Still no joy. It will, however, pick up any user objectfor whichI set CA9 to 'INCLUDE'...what's different about the DLs? Before I go digging into the underbelly with ADSIEdit and such, I'm hoping somebody has seen this behavior before. Thanks in advance.

Any issues in your exchange app log relating to AD? Have you tried any other operators/attributes combos?

Yes, I've tried Description and E-mail address. I just tried searching the directory (right-click in ADUC-->Find) for Exchange Recipients ending in my e-mail domain...only users. No DLs show, so it looks like either 1)my problem isa little bigger than I thought, or 2) there's something fundamental I'm missing about defining my queries/filters (I'm gonna bet it's #2, so I'll try to look at it for basic misunderstanding of function. Got it, and boy do I feel like a bonehead. In the filter definitionadvanced tab Ididn't realize you have to choose the field/attribute from the actual type that you're looking for (Group, User, etc.). I thoughtthat the specific category/type of object was coveredalready since you're defining 'Exchange Recipients' in the Find: drop-down menu AND checking the boxes on the General tab for what types of objects you want. That's crazy...on the Advanced tab after you've chosen a condition, it does not indicate in the Condition List that the field chosen only applies togroups, orcontacts, or users, etc. I'm not sure if that's a poorly designed interface or if I just flubbed this one up...since the type of object is actually chosen there, too, I would think the Condition List should show the type and the field instead of just the field. Oh well, I can only hope that my boneheaded blunder and subsequent explanation can help some other poor souls whoare making the same assumptions about the interface and missing what is fairly obvious. Your comment about trying other operators/attributes ledme to discovering this, so I thank you for your input.