Re: [Samba] Ripe woman
Check the headers on the original message. It's being detected by SpamAssassin as having spammy-qualities... however the fact it's on a known mailing list (samba's) usually pushes it way under the limit ;-) I complained about it a day or two ago too (check for the "offtopic" posts from me). Short of whomever maintains these mail severs adjusting the SpamAssassin checks so that the "PORN" ones outweigh the whitelists, there aint much to do... * On 04-01-14, claudio wrote: > This list can't be moderated? > > Only porno spams are the things missing:( > > > > Isabella wrote: > > >COME ON HERE: http://zone.hoha.ru/allstrip > > > >What can be better than hard fuck? Here you will see how it should be done by all > >rules! > >Ripe girls are ready to start it even now! > > > >Kathy took soft yet dick in her hands and by few movements made it hard as stone! > >Here it is - power and skill of the ripe woman! But if she had only skilful hands, > >she hardly could be here! > >Tight-assed and lustfull - what she is! She will not think long and her desires > >will hold the reins! > >100% Cock Hungry Girls - real girls that love to fuck and suck a dick until they > >get covered in cum! > > > > > > -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] spam (way offtopic, sorry ;-)
Hmmm.. maybe they should counter balance that by having things like 'LIVE_PORN' or 'BEST_PORN' have very big values as well ;-) Then again, perhaps that would then filter my message as well ;-) * On 04-01-13, Thiago Lima wrote: > > USER_IN_WHITELIST, SpamAssassin knows some famous mailing lists and put > a very big value for then. > > regards > thiago. > > > > -Original Message- > > From: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > rg] On Behalf Of Sam Hart > > Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:07 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: [Samba] spam (way offtopic, sorry ;-) > > > > > > In the Spam that made it onto this list yesterday I took the > > time to look > > into the headers (out of curiosity) and I found this: > > > > X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 > > (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on > > dp.samba.org > > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-84.0 required=3.5 > > tests=BANG_GUARANTEE,BAYES_99, > > BEST_PORN,CLICK_BELOW_CAPS,DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12,HTML_50_60, > > > > HTML_LINK_CLICK_CAPS,HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,LESBIAN, > > LIVE_PORN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.61 > > > > So SpamAssassin (which I am a big fan of, BTW) scanned the > > message and > > somehow determine that the hits for it should be -84 in spite > > of all the > > various marks against it? What's up with that? > > > > Uh... could it be that the Samba lists server isn't set up > > properly for > > SpamAssassin? Anyway, perhaps someone should point that out > > to whomever is > > maintaining the lists on samba.org ;-) > > > > (Sorry for OT, I just found that very odd indeed ;-) > > > > -- > > Sam Hart > > University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > end > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the > > instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba > > > > -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] spam (way offtopic, sorry ;-)
In the Spam that made it onto this list yesterday I took the time to look into the headers (out of curiosity) and I found this: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.61 (1.212.2.1-2003-12-09-exp) on dp.samba.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-84.0 required=3.5 tests=BANG_GUARANTEE,BAYES_99, BEST_PORN,CLICK_BELOW_CAPS,DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12,HTML_50_60, HTML_LINK_CLICK_CAPS,HTML_LINK_CLICK_HERE,HTML_MESSAGE,LESBIAN, LIVE_PORN,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=no version=2.61 So SpamAssassin (which I am a big fan of, BTW) scanned the message and somehow determine that the hits for it should be -84 in spite of all the various marks against it? What's up with that? Uh... could it be that the Samba lists server isn't set up properly for SpamAssassin? Anyway, perhaps someone should point that out to whomever is maintaining the lists on samba.org ;-) (Sorry for OT, I just found that very odd indeed ;-) -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Re: Using Samba with LDAP and SSL
Oh, if LDAP is just Samba's backend, then it should be transparent to Windows. If you're talking about securing LDAP so that the Windows machines can't access it, then there's a variety of things you could do with ACLs in LDAP that would help out. Depending on which LDAP server you're using, setting this would be different. * On 03-10-10, Jamrock wrote: > > "Sam Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Well, as far as Samba is concerned, it isn't required for your Windows > > workstation to contact the LDAP server. > > True, but the documentation recommends the use of SSL if you are using the > LDAP backend. This encrypts the LDAP authentication data. > > I have Samba 3.0 working with LDAP. I need to secure it before I deploy it > in a production environment. -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] Using Samba with LDAP and SSL
* On 03-10-10, Jamrock wrote: > I have been reading up on SSL and LDAP. > > I have read how to create the CA and how to sign certificates. > > When using Outlook Express, LDAP and SSL, we need to import the certificate > so that Outlook Express can verify the authenticity of the LDAP server. > > What does my Samba setup need to allow the Windows workstation to contact > the LDAP server over SSL? Well, as far as Samba is concerned, it isn't required for your Windows workstation to contact the LDAP server. Things like OE can just connect their Address Books directly to the LDAP directory. They just need to supply adequate directory credentials. One thing that should be noted about encryption is that Windows doesn't support StartTLS, but does support LDAPS. Where it makes sense to start talking about Samba+LDAP is in three areas (okay, there's probably more, but these are the most common): * LDAP stores SAMBA's authentication info (SAMBA is a DC of some sort, and Windows machines connect to it). So LDAP would store usernames, LM/NT passwords, etc. You'd use the sambaAccount schema in this case. * LDAP stores SAMBA printer information (SAMBA provides printer shares and LDAP stores that printer info). * LDAP provides a gateway between SAMBA and some Windows-based domain. (Here, LDAP would integrate with AD or something. AFAIK, this is increasingly redundant now that SAMBA 3.0 is out). Again, there's more situations, but these seem to be the most common (at least, these are the ones most of my students are interested in). Which brings me to my shameless plug, if you're in the Tucson, AZ area I do technically teach a class on all this (contact me off list ;-) -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Alternative <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
RE: [Samba] explorer.exe crashing at login
> Hi, > > Reading your email, are u implying that the default user settings are >updated in the SP3. If this is the case if you have a Default User >directory under the netlogin share does this mean it will have to >updated. If this is the case then our highly modified NTUSER.dat will >need to be updated from SP3 then all the mods will need to be reapplied. >Is this the case??? I'm not certain, I guess they could be. We did recently apply SP3 (very recently) and I actually hadn't made the connection. In our situation, we don't have a Default user directory, everyone has their own unique login. Also, we have roaming profiles disabled (which is retained for legacy purposes, i.e., certain members of our staff would have a cow if they lost their bookmarks/backgrounds ;-) so the profiles are stored on the client machines. If you do have a highly modified NTUSER.dat file, then you may need to have it be recreated... I dont know. Was this an NTUSER.dat file that was modified by hand? (Not like I can help you further one way or the other, it's just that I've always been far too squeemish to look much in, let alone mess with, these files, so I'm curious.) -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] explorer.exe crashing at login
I don't think I'll be able to help solve your problem completely, but I may be able to send you in the right direction. We recently had this problem as well, and found that giving the users higher priviledges on their local client machines solved the problem (which, for our users, was not a desirable solution). It turns out in our situation it had nothing to do with samba being configured incorrectly, but in the fact that the ntuser.* files in their profile directories had older (now incorrect) information in them (after the upgrade). The way I had to solve it was to log in the users (non-priviledged) with out having their profiles roaming (so that Windows created a new profile for them) and then manually copy their new ntuser.* (uh... ntuser.dat, ntuser.dat.log and ntuser.ini, I think) files from the new profile back into their old profile (and then setting them back up to access their old profile) Doing this kludge solved the problem you are talking about in our system. I am guessing (and this is just a shot in the dark) that in our case, the upgrade caused Winwoes (W2K) to think the domain had changed, and that this caused the previous profile information on the client machine to be lost (at least, when viewing ownership on the client machine, the user name was replaced with a long string of garbage). begin quote: On 03-02-19, Orion Poplawski wrote: > We're running a network of Windows 2000 SP3 machines with Samba 2.2.7 as > the PDC and roaming profile store. Certain users logging onto certain > machines will see an error dialogue pop-up saying explorer.exe has > generated errors and will exit. This keeps popping up and to only > course of action is to ctrl-alt-del and logout. For most people, > everything works fine. > > I've been able to clear it up temporarily my moving the profile > directory out of the way on the server, but the problem can re-occur. > > This seems to have started after I made some changes to our samba > server, and may have lost certain machine trust information, but I'm not > sure. > > Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] Two MS Access questions (compact database & Access XP)
We're in the process of replacing an ailing NT box with a Linux one running Samba (Red Hat 7.3 w/ kernel 2.4.18-18.7.xsmp [from Red Hat] and samba version 2.2.7, with a variety of Win2k boxes connecting to it) and I have a couple of quick MS Access questions (in the hopes someone out there has had any experience with these things): 1) We have one rather large (700MB+) Access database on the Samba server which is only in use by one user (no filelocking issues). This user regularily uses the 'Compact Database' option from within MS Access on the client computer (Tools->Database Utilities->Compact Database). Since we have switched to Samba, everytime the user chooses this option, it crashes her machine (completely, as in the system suddenly reboots). I have been able to duplicate this on my test machine as well. Has anyone else ever seen this before? If so, anyone know how to fix it? 2) One of our offices (which has a rather extensive Access database used by multiple people at the same time) will be needing to upgrade to Office XP in Feb. or Mar. Does anyone know off-hand of any troubles running Samba with Office XP (specifically Access XP) from Win2k boxes? BTW, for those interested, here is appropriate sections from smb.conf for the share in the first question: [acsup] path = /export/acsup read only = No browseable = No oplocks = No level2oplocks = No writable = yes browsable = yes only user = no and everything else seems to work fine. -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
Re: [Samba] "force group" not working with shared directories
> Set the directory SUID group and if you want forced user do SUID user > also. Much preferred way instead of doing this in samba. > > It's a Unix file system issue, not a samba issue. Doh! I had the group ownership correct, but failed to ensure that SUID was set. (Crap, I need a vacation ;-) Thanks gazillions. -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
[Samba] "force group" not working with shared directories
I'm trying my darnedest to set up a samba server to share some directories for certain user groups. Several of the shares will be housing databases (incl. MS Access) which will be accessed by several users, often at the same time, and thus need to deal with both file-locking and group ownership. I have read that I need essentially the following in my smb.conf file: [lab] path = /usr2/lab available = yes public = yes guest only = no writeable = yes browseable = yes valid users = foonly, hart only user = no oplocks = No level2oplocks = No create mask = 770 directory mask = 770 force group = lab with the important lines being "create mask", "directory mask" and "force group". The problem is that while the "create mask" and "directory mask" lines work, the "force group" line does not, and the group "lab" is never forced for new files/directories created in that share. I have tried both "= lab" and "= +lab" (not really understanding the difference) and neither worked. I've had some samba experience in the past, but it has always been rudimentary (printer sharing, basic/non-readable file sharing) and trying to make this work is baffling me. Any advice would be mucho apreciated. (oh, and before anyone askes, yes, I'm SIGHUP'ing my smbd each time I change the config). -- Sam Hart University/Work addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Personal addr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> end -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
