> Kyle Tucker wrote: > > But recent research into LDIF revealed that the proper way > > What do you mean by "recent" here? RFC 2849 was published in 2000, and > I don't think there was much further research. That document illustrate > even wiser (and syntactically correct) means to perform the > modifications you need. I was referring to my research. I was more looking into why the other non-replace method works, if it was some optional syntax or if it wasn't even working as it seemed, although all evidence I saw indicated it was. -- - Kyle
