New organization I'm at has asked me to look at the drive mappings, which are currently done with batch files using ifmember as a conditional statement. At this time, it is unclear if this is depreciated or not. (currently Group Objects links the batch script to users.) It appears that I was asked to recreate the script with group policy. Simple enough, or not. The Script maps a few drives to everyone (g,h,i), then has a drive that has nine options on how it is mapped. This drive (L:) is mapped with the ifmember conditional test, and if the condition passes - then a goto jumps past the other options on mapping that drive letter. After reviewing a wonderful description of mapping drives with group policy preferences ( http://blogs.technet.com/b/askds/archive/2009/01/07/using-group-policy-preferences-to-map-drives-based-on-group-membership.aspx?PageIndex=2#comments ), and some social postings: it looks simple. 1) Map G,H,I (use replace, non persistent) 2) Map the ten options for L: in reverse order of the script, using inclusive targeting groups. (in the script, the first one applicable takes. This should make the last L: applicable take precedence over the others.) Repeat this step for every drive with multiple options, as in the pre-existing batch file. Question 1: What happens if the user tries to map a drive that they don't have access to? Will this take a few minutes before it times out? (also, what happens if this runs while computer is not on network?) Question 2: Can I use Inclusive, and Exclusive targeting for the same mapping? (eg: Map if member if X, but not if member of Y?) Thanks, I would prefer to test, but am not sure I'm going to be allowed to without documentation beforehand.

Hi, Regarding question 1, if the user tries to map a drive that they donot have access to, they will get a warning message that says they donot have enough permission to access the location. If the computer isnot on network, the message will be the location is not available. Regarding question 2, of course, you can use this two rules simultaneously, but this will improve the evaluation complexity of target rule. In fact, we donot suggest to do like that. Juke Chou TechNet Subscriber Support If you are TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedbackhere. Juke Chou TechNet Community Support

Hi, Regarding question 1, if the user tries to map a drive that they donot have access to, they will get a warning message that says they donot have enough permission to access the location. If the computer isnot on network, the message will be the location is not available. Regarding question 2, of course, you can use this two rules simultaneously, but this will improve the evaluation complexity of target rule. In fact, we donot suggest to do like that. Juke Chou TechNet Subscriber Support If you are TechNet Subscription user and have any feedback on our support quality, please send your feedbackhere. Juke Chou TechNet Community Support

Hi, Anything else I can help with?Juke Chou TechNet Community Support

Sorry: was out yesterday. In our case, the script maps (J:, K:, N:) and then when it gets to L: does something like (Bad pseudocode): Is User Member of C-Suites? If = True then {series of ifmember tests that map L: drive path || Skip past all other L: drive mapping tests} ( EG: ifmember of C1 (Map L: to C1 if true), ifmember of C2 (map L: to C2 if true).. ifmember c9 (map C9); If false goto Managers (Skip c-Suite tests)) Managers Ifmember Managers then {series of ifmember tests that map & goto "NextDriveMapping") Else goto Next-L-DriveMappingLabel (Skip Manager tests) ... I am not sure there is political viability to put the users in multiple OU's (or to have different drive letters used) as that would require better documentation in the org. I was thinking I could put the tests in reverse order, and exclude certain groups from attempting mappings. (eg: Map C-Suite L: drives last, and exclude C-Suite members form other drive mappings.) - Suggestions as to how to implement this with best practices? (Stating Use different drive letters is fine, perhaps with 'you can kludge it "using XYZ' but it's not really recommended.' Thanks