>Are there any benefits to adding a user to directory, not file or share, permissions instead of a local group?
>
>I was asked this the other day and the only answer that I could come up with was that it was easier to add a user to a group that already had the appropriate permissions assigned than to set each user up. But I couldn't really come up with anything else.
>

Not really, since you can assign a user to a group to get default permissions, and then go and change the permissions for that specific user on folders where that user needs dift access for specific folders. With a large number of users, it's certainly less of a maintenance nightmare to have most access permissions managed at a group level rather than on a user-by-user and folder-by-folder basis where access applies to whole classes of users.