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.