FW: amiga suvival (fwd) - feedback to the Samba team!
I think the Samba dev team could use this good message in such an dark cold winterday :) How cool is it that there are Amiga computers running Samba, even PDC functionality! :) My regards to the team for their good efforts. cc: Olaf Barthel, the Amiga OS port maintainer. -- Ulf Amiga Samba Team > Hi, > > *** Begin of forwarded message *** > > Date: 11-Dec-02 15:58:18 > From: el psycho diablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: amiga suvival > > --- Forwarded message follows --- > > > After i found out samba for amiga, i do > > 1. bring my amiga to my company > 2. install samba on the amiga > 3. make samba to a PDC > 4. now my amiga is a Windows Server manage all NT 4 and W2K clients > > > I m proud about the programer > > kaan yazici
samba
Hi I've installed Linux (mandrake 9.0) on my Pc at work... Internet is OK.. but I can't access the NT network from linux... If I do smb://localhost:901 : I see no files, but I can see the title columns (Nom,Taille, Type de fichier, Modifié, Droits d'accès) If I do smb://gva0006/D : It asks me for identification, but I've tried to fill it with every passwords I know, nothing helps... gva0006/d is a windows shared disk that I can access from my windows partition... Thanks Philippe
Re: samba
At 14:02 27.01.2003 +0100, Philippe Vigneau wrote: Hi I've installed Linux (mandrake 9.0) on my Pc at work... Internet is OK.. but I can't access the NT network from linux... If I do smb://localhost:901 : I see no files, but I can see the title columns (Nom,Taille, Type de fichier, Modifié, Droits d'accès) If I do smb://gva0006/D : It asks me for identification, but I've tried to fill it with every passwords I know, nothing helps... gva0006/d is a windows shared disk that I can access from my windows partition... Thanks Philippe Hi Philippe, please mail user questions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or ask in the #samba channel on the irc.freenode.net servers samba-techincal is only for developers:-) thanks metze - Stefan "metze" Metzmacher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cupsaddsmb ignores alternative backends?
cupsaddsmb appears to disregard the backend information supplied in smb.conf. Specifically, if I use a non-smbpasswd backend (such as LDAP), I get the following trail of errors in the smbd log: [2003/01/27 14:24:14, 0] passdb/pdb_smbpasswd.c:startsmbfilepwent(189) startsmbfilepwent_internal: unable to open file /etc/samba/smbpasswd. Error was No such file or directory [2003/01/27 14:24:14, 0] passdb/pdb_smbpasswd.c:smbpasswd_getsampwnam(1351) unable to open passdb database. [2003/01/27 14:24:14, 1] smbd/service.c:make_connection_snum(681) workst1 (127.0.0.1) connect to service print$ initially as user ADMIN (uid=10012, gid=1) (pid 504) [2003/01/27 14:24:14, 1] smbd/service.c:close_cnum(859) workst1 (127.0.0.1) closed connection to service print$ Cheers, Waider. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me. "It's a horrible thing to watch, almost like watching an infant tottering toward a porcupine." - Kyle Jones on MIS people writing C
smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-(
Wondering if anyone knows if it is planned, or if there are patches for large file support in the client side of samba 2.2.x series. I have large files on the windows side that I want to access via smbclient (specifically smbtar), and these fail spectacularly. You can get the filesize of a large file correctly, but all the code that talks to the windows side (cli_*) assumes size is 32-bit, and doesn't seem to be using the newest CIFS protocol. Any advice or suggestions? Neil Goldberg MITRE Corporation PS I am aware the smbfs provides support for large files, but this is linux specific and I am targetting Solaris.
Re: smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-(
Neil, You might want to "download" the latest Samba from CVS. Check out the Web site on how to do this. There has been an issue fixed in late December 2002 (a + 4GB issue) using smbclient. Pierre B. Neil Goldberg wrote: Wondering if anyone knows if it is planned, or if there are patches for large file support in the client side of samba 2.2.x series. I have large files on the windows side that I want to access via smbclient (specifically smbtar), and these fail spectacularly. You can get the filesize of a large file correctly, but all the code that talks to the windows side (cli_*) assumes size is 32-bit, and doesn't seem to be using the newest CIFS protocol. Any advice or suggestions? Neil Goldberg MITRE Corporation PS I am aware the smbfs provides support for large files, but this is linux specific and I am targetting Solaris.
RE: smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-(
Samba 2.2.x is essentially frozen. No further development is planned. PG -Original Message- From: Neil Goldberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Monday, January 27, 2003 12:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-( Wondering if anyone knows if it is planned, or if there are patches for large file support in the client side of samba 2.2.x series. I have large files on the windows side that I want to access via smbclient (specifically smbtar), and these fail spectacularly. You can get the filesize of a large file correctly, but all the code that talks to the windows side (cli_*) assumes size is 32-bit, and doesn't seem to be using the newest CIFS protocol. Any advice or suggestions? Neil Goldberg MITRE Corporation PS I am aware the smbfs provides support for large files, but this is linux specific and I am targetting Solaris.
Re: Bug in nmbd_become_dmb.c (CVS 1.7 3.somehting) [patch]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Damjan "Zobo" Cvetko wrote:
> I dont know if this is the rigth list for this..
> I'm using the latest samba 3.x. from CVS.. (because of the wins replication)
> I have it set up as master browser, but it wont register itself (to the WINS
> server running in the same nmbd) as DMB (WROKGROUP#1b..)
Why not just set
domain master = yes
domain logons = yes
?
By not setting domain logons, you've created a box that Windows clients
will believe to be a PDC but one that will not be listed in the DOMAIN#1c
list of addresses.
>/* Do the domain master names. */
> - if(lp_server_role() == ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC)
> + if (lp_domain_master() == True)
>{
I don't think i will commit this patch unless you can further convince me.
cheers, jerry
--
Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com
SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org
GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc
ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed
"You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there."
--John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/
iD8DBQE+NZ/kIR7qMdg1EfYRAqbGAKDtsGG8fo+025Zt8epRB32kINa8mACgi2V8
nl5zKAaKX+ImH6OjyxHZ41Q=
=LGOw
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PIPE BUSY
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Dave Aitel wrote: > I guess I should have been more complete - I can send ONE fragment just > fine, but when I send the next fragment (for a multy fragment request) I > get back an SMB error that says PIPE_BUSY. (According to netmon). > > Does anyone know a rpcclient request that sends enough data to generate > a multi-pdu request? (I'd use 3.0 but I can't get it compiled. :<) > > Also looking for an example of Samba doing an RPC request via WriteX. Our client code couldn't do it for a long time. I thought Jim fixed this when he was working on the printer publishing stuff for 3.0. I could be remembering wring though. cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+NaDgIR7qMdg1EfYRAj1NAJ4ykcxUZFLZNxiEmGM+BOO9jh85YgCguYpb BlPW/7EHweAnxkGY5/r2OCE= =cISr -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PIPE BUSY
Hmmm. I still can't do it, but I think I can do the writex thing...:> -dave On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:13:04 -0600 (CST) "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Dave Aitel wrote: > > > I guess I should have been more complete - I can send ONE fragment > > just fine, but when I send the next fragment (for a multy fragment > > request) I get back an SMB error that says PIPE_BUSY. (According to > > netmon). > > > > Does anyone know a rpcclient request that sends enough data to > > generate a multi-pdu request? (I'd use 3.0 but I can't get it > > compiled. :<) > > > > Also looking for an example of Samba doing an RPC request via > > WriteX. > > Our client code couldn't do it for a long time. I thought Jim fixed > this when he was working on the printer publishing stuff for 3.0. I > could be remembering wring though. > > > > > cheers, jerry > > -- Hewlett-Packard- > http://www.hp.com > SAMBA Team -- > http://www.samba.org > GnuPG Key > http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc > ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" > 2ed"You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop > there." > --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" > (1997) > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ > > iD8DBQE+NaDgIR7qMdg1EfYRAj1NAJ4ykcxUZFLZNxiEmGM+BOO9jh85YgCguYpb > BlPW/7EHweAnxkGY5/r2OCE= > =cISr > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
Re: Bug in nmbd_become_dmb.c (CVS 1.7 3.somehting) [patch]
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:08:52PM -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Damjan "Zobo" Cvetko wrote:
> > I dont know if this is the rigth list for this..
> > I'm using the latest samba 3.x. from CVS.. (because of the wins replication)
> > I have it set up as master browser, but it wont register itself (to the WINS
> > server running in the same nmbd) as DMB (WROKGROUP#1b..)
> Why not just set
> domain master = yes
> domain logons = yes
> ?
> By not setting domain logons, you've created a box that Windows clients
> will believe to be a PDC but one that will not be listed in the DOMAIN#1c
> list of addresses.
> >/* Do the domain master names. */
> > - if(lp_server_role() == ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC)
> > + if (lp_domain_master() == True)
> >{
> I don't think i will commit this patch unless you can further convince me.
It's a change from Samba's previous behavior.
If there's ever anything else on the network that needs the #1b name, it
will be broken by Samba registering the #1b name. Period. It doesn't
matter whether the option to enable this is called 'domain master = yes'
or 'domain logons = yes'; if the user enables the corresponding setting
in a domain with a preexisting PDC, it will break one way or the other.
So changing the meaning of the option doesn't really protect against
this, but it does break configurations that previously worked for people
who need DMBs but don't need logon servers.
Much better, IMHO, would be to leave the code as it was in 2.2, but
make sure 3.0's *documentation* strongly encourages using 'domain logons'
instead of 'domain master'. Granted, in all the cases I've seen,
enabling 'domain logons' in addition to 'domain master' hasn't done any
harm; but is it really worth gratuitiously breaking users' 2.2 configs to
get this point across?
FWIW, this is the third time I've seen this issue come up with the 3.0
alphas.
--
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer
msg05533/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: Limitations of Samba-2.2.x as a domain member talking to an ADdomain controller
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Chere Zhou wrote: > I had this similar question too. Apparently a "Domain local group" in the > ADS does not show up on my Samba 2.2.5. Not sure what else would be. This should be fixed in Samba 3.0/HEAD. Known issue in 2.2 cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+NaCIIR7qMdg1EfYRAs4SAKCFrvpUxQ4WYg2t872kycnu4QiacwCghf9n 9S7x8GgnMKL/o/2/p3dgNn0= =NpHo -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PIPE BUSY
You still can't do it, meaning on 2.2? yeah, that won't work. But it should work on 3.0 or HEAD (assuming you can get it to compile). Jim McDonough IBM Linux Technology Center Samba Team 6 Minuteman Drive Scarborough, ME 04074 USA [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (207) 885-5565 IBM tie-line: 776-9984 Dave Aitel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] samba-technical-admin@listSubject: Re: PIPE BUSY s.samba.org 01/27/2003 05:09 PM Hmmm. I still can't do it, but I think I can do the writex thing...:> -dave On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:13:04 -0600 (CST) "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Dave Aitel wrote: > > > I guess I should have been more complete - I can send ONE fragment > > just fine, but when I send the next fragment (for a multy fragment > > request) I get back an SMB error that says PIPE_BUSY. (According to > > netmon). > > > > Does anyone know a rpcclient request that sends enough data to > > generate a multi-pdu request? (I'd use 3.0 but I can't get it > > compiled. :<) > > > > Also looking for an example of Samba doing an RPC request via > > WriteX. > > Our client code couldn't do it for a long time. I thought Jim fixed > this when he was working on the printer publishing stuff for 3.0. I > could be remembering wring though. > > > > > cheers, jerry > > -- Hewlett-Packard- > http://www.hp.com > SAMBA Team -- > http://www.samba.org > GnuPG Key > http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc > ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" > 2ed"You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop > there." > --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" > (1997) > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ > > iD8DBQE+NaDgIR7qMdg1EfYRAj1NAJ4ykcxUZFLZNxiEmGM+BOO9jh85YgCguYpb > BlPW/7EHweAnxkGY5/r2OCE= > =cISr > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > >
RE : [Samba] Winbind on HPUX11, Totally Stuck, Please Help
Title: RE : [Samba] Winbind on HPUX11, Totally Stuck, Please Help Miles, Jennifer I am not currently using Winbind, but I did try testing with it on HPUX 1100 about a year ago. To get it to work I followed the instructions I found at the following web site : www.miratek.com/samba It might have some answers to your problems. Hope this helps. Cheers.
RE: RE : [Samba] Winbind on HPUX11, Totally Stuck, Please Help
Title: RE : [Samba] Winbind on HPUX11, Totally Stuck, Please Help Hi Drew, No luck. Pretty much done all that, still get all the same problems. That site was pretty good though :o) Does anyone have an idea about the shell logging in? Why do I keep on getting logged out? Does the home directory need to be created, does it need a .profile? What about the permissions? I've tried creating one world writeable but no luck. Cheers Miles -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, 28 January 2003 02:35 a.m.To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE : [Samba] Winbind on HPUX11, Totally Stuck, Please Help Miles, Jennifer I am not currently using Winbind, but I did try testing with it on HPUX 1100 about a year ago. To get it to work I followed the instructions I found at the following web site : www.miratek.com/samba It might have some answers to your problems. Hope this helps. Cheers.
Re: PIPE BUSY
No, I mean using my own personal SMB stack I can't do it (I always get PIPE Busy errors on the second fragment), and I can't get Samba 3.0 to compile. :> -dave On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 19:25:38 -0500 Jim McDonough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > You still can't do it, meaning on 2.2? yeah, that won't work. But it > should work on 3.0 or HEAD (assuming you can get it to compile). > > > Jim McDonough > IBM Linux Technology Center > Samba Team > 6 Minuteman Drive > Scarborough, ME 04074 > USA > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Phone: (207) 885-5565 > IBM tie-line: 776-9984 > > > > > Dave Aitel > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: > "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent by: cc: > [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > samba-technical-admin@listSubject: Re: > PIPE BUSY > > s.samba.org > > > > 01/27/2003 05:09 PM > > > > > > > > Hmmm. I still can't do it, but I think I can do the writex thing...:> > -dave > > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:13:04 -0600 (CST) > "Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Dave Aitel wrote: > > > > > I guess I should have been more complete - I can send ONE fragment > > > just fine, but when I send the next fragment (for a multy fragment > > > request) I get back an SMB error that says PIPE_BUSY. (According > > > to netmon). > > > > > > Does anyone know a rpcclient request that sends enough data to > > > generate a multi-pdu request? (I'd use 3.0 but I can't get it > > > compiled. :<) > > > > > > Also looking for an example of Samba doing an RPC request via > > > WriteX. > > > > Our client code couldn't do it for a long time. I thought Jim fixed > > this when he was working on the printer publishing stuff for 3.0. I > > could be remembering wring though. > > > > > > > > > > cheers, jerry > > -- > > Hewlett-Packard- > > http://www.hp.com > > SAMBA Team -- > > http://www.samba.org > > GnuPG Key > > http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc > > ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" > > 2ed"You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop > > there." > > --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" > > (1997) > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- > > Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) > > Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ > > > > iD8DBQE+NaDgIR7qMdg1EfYRAj1NAJ4ykcxUZFLZNxiEmGM+BOO9jh85YgCguYpb > > BlPW/7EHweAnxkGY5/r2OCE= > > =cISr > > -END PGP SIGNATURE- > > > > > > > >
Re: smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-(
Quoting Pierre Belanger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) from 27 January 2003: > Neil, > > You might want to "download" the latest Samba from CVS. Check > out the Web site on how to do this. There has been an issue > fixed in late December 2002 (a + 4GB issue) using smbclient. There are still quite a few places in smbtar that are not large file safe. Probably some in client.c as well but I haven't looked. One of these days if I have time I will try to go through and submit a real patch but currently I have tried to pass this off on Herb (though I guess it didn't work too well ;-). If others are interested in fixing bugs in this area I can send a small list that I had collected from a quick run through of the code. I'm rather sorry to hear that 2.2 will not receive these large file fixes. I don't view this as continued development but rather as important bug fixes so that there is still a workable stable branch until 3.0 has finished stabilizing. -b
Re: smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-(
On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 09:42:27PM -0500, Brian Poole wrote: > Quoting Pierre Belanger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) from 27 January 2003: > > Neil, > > > > You might want to "download" the latest Samba from CVS. Check > > out the Web site on how to do this. There has been an issue > > fixed in late December 2002 (a + 4GB issue) using smbclient. > > There are still quite a few places in smbtar that are not large file > safe. Probably some in client.c as well but I haven't looked. One of > these days if I have time I will try to go through and submit a real > patch but currently I have tried to pass this off on Herb (though I > guess it didn't work too well ;-). If others are interested in > fixing bugs in this area I can send a small list that I had collected > from a quick run through of the code. > > I'm rather sorry to hear that 2.2 will not receive these large file > fixes. I don't view this as continued development but rather as > important bug fixes so that there is still a workable stable branch > until 3.0 has finished stabilizing. There may yet be a 2.2.8. Don't give up on 2.2.x yet - please keep sending in large file fixes for 2.2.x. Thanks, Jeremy.
Re: smbclient 64-bit read/write support, and the lack thereof :-(
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Brian Poole wrote: > Quoting Pierre Belanger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) from 27 January 2003: > > Neil, > > > > You might want to "download" the latest Samba from CVS. Check > > out the Web site on how to do this. There has been an issue > > fixed in late December 2002 (a + 4GB issue) using smbclient. > > There are still quite a few places in smbtar that are not large file > safe. Probably some in client.c as well but I haven't looked. One of > these days if I have time I will try to go through and submit a real > patch but currently I have tried to pass this off on Herb (though I > guess it didn't work too well ;-). If others are interested in > fixing bugs in this area I can send a small list that I had collected > from a quick run through of the code. Send me the list and I will see what I can do :-) Regards - Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
Re: Consequences of refusing to mangle names
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Richard Sharpe wrote: > Hi, > > Has anyone tried this or does anyone have any opinions on what would > happen if we refuse to provide mangled names in the responses to a > find-first or find-next? > > It seems that if we set the Short File Name Len to 0 in responses, that > might work. > > I wonder which apps will break in that case? > > The reason for wanting to do this is performance related :-) Can't you do the same thing on NTFS when you tell it not to generate 8.3 filenames? You just can't run any DOS/16-bit apps. jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+NdwKIR7qMdg1EfYRAnhjAJ4rDAgiSusxocPR3vbawcckb+8AzgCfVwFm eL5r/RMODIKk9eoHyNRQ84g= =k9p/ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ldap backend rejoining domain problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 24 Jan 2003, Bradley W. Langhorst wrote: > I've noticed that if one re-images a machine that is already in the > domain one must manually delete the machine account from ldap after the > machine leaves the domain (otherwise domain joining doesn't work > properly) > > It seems to me that we should catch domain exits and delete the machine > account... I don't really know where to start on this. > > can anybody point me in the right direction? Can you send me some more information on this? What branch? cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+Nd0qIR7qMdg1EfYRAvdrAJ9eak5K7v27Gep+gKIP7+volmodhgCgsMpM 3/BoXfCKLkN+PpvFxQlPXP4= =FPy9 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: FW: amiga suvival (fwd) - feedback to the Samba team!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Ulf Bertilsson wrote: > I think the Samba dev team could use this good > message in such an dark cold winterday :) > > How cool is it that there are Amiga computers running Samba, > even PDC functionality! :) > > My regards to the team for their good efforts. This is a classic post. I'm saving this one :-) Thanks. cheers, jerry > > *** Begin of forwarded message *** > > > > Date: 11-Dec-02 15:58:18 > > From: el psycho diablo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: amiga suvival > > > > --- Forwarded message follows --- > > > > > > After i found out samba for amiga, i do > > > > 1. bring my amiga to my company > > 2. install samba on the amiga > > 3. make samba to a PDC > > 4. now my amiga is a Windows Server manage all NT 4 and W2K clients > > > > > > I m proud about the programer > > > > kaan yazici > - -- -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+Nd18IR7qMdg1EfYRAliPAKCPfdOjyz8lh60Y5giqpsnKzwODDgCfXqJQ X8LaH1ywc0Q1ylbUKfnDTW8= =sMw1 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [PATCH] CUPS printer class support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Michael Sweet wrote: > The attached patch adds support for CUPS printer classes to SAMBA. Applied to HEAD/SAMBA_3_0 cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+Nd8/IR7qMdg1EfYRApRNAKCn0lMjMD1l0VNIUc4wDzzfyaBESACgoTYB hcdR95WoO3pnk0kcnsISDOg= =p2c4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ldap backend rejoining domain problem
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 20:30, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 24 Jan 2003, Bradley W. Langhorst wrote: > > > I've noticed that if one re-images a machine that is already in the > > domain one must manually delete the machine account from ldap after the > > machine leaves the domain (otherwise domain joining doesn't work > > properly) > > > > It seems to me that we should catch domain exits and delete the machine > > account... I don't really know where to start on this. > > > > can anybody point me in the right direction? > > Can you send me some more information on this? What branch? all branches (as far as i know) certainly 3.0 a21 and 2.2 I don't think it is a bug so much as an un-implemented and desireable feature. I'm willing to try to put something like this in but i'm not sure where to put it... brad
Re: ldap backend rejoining domain problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 27 Jan 2003, Bradley W. Langhorst wrote: > > > I've noticed that if one re-images a machine that is already in the > > > domain one must manually delete the machine account from ldap after the > > > machine leaves the domain (otherwise domain joining doesn't work > > > properly) > all branches (as far as i know) > certainly 3.0 a21 and 2.2 > > I don't think it is a bug so much as an un-implemented and desireable > feature. I'm willing to try to put something like this in but i'm not > sure where to put it... I have no problems joining, unjoining, and rejoining a Samab 3.0 domain (using an LDAP backend). Perhaps you could send me some logs files? cheers, jerry -- Hewlett-Packard- http://www.hp.com SAMBA Team -- http://www.samba.org GnuPG Key http://www.plainjoe.org/gpg_public.asc ISBN 0-672-32269-2 "SAMS Teach Yourself Samba in 24 Hours" 2ed "You can never go home again, Oatman, but I guess you can shop there." --John Cusack - "Grosse Point Blank" (1997) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+NeVoIR7qMdg1EfYRAitTAJ9WMkXyK4DApYdZMw9XY9IywHkq4QCghfnR SMn3yyoPAVhUvkyv9SNZaj0= =YhZe -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ldap backend rejoining domain problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: > I have no problems joining, unjoining, and rejoining a Samab 3.0 domain > (using an LDAP backend). Perhaps you could send me some logs files? I should have mentioned that this is using the latest SAMBA_3_0 cvs code. cheers, jerry -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+NeWlIR7qMdg1EfYRAufaAKCDHIEfeCyzyWbmqLYQys+2GHjlrQCfXrgl qMZAStZUuY4/uYgTYf8dqBw= =3Uu4 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: ldap backend rejoining domain problem
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 21:06, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote: > > > I have no problems joining, unjoining, and rejoining a Samab 3.0 domain > > (using an LDAP backend). Perhaps you could send me some logs files? > > I should have mentioned that this is using the latest SAMBA_3_0 cvs code. jerry - i know you've not had a chance to answer my last mail but I thought the following log excerpt might be interesting to you. The machine account was not deleted on my last test - on top of that the old machine account seems to still have the old password (i think that explains the mismatch below) [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] lib/util.c:dump_data(1761) [000] 36 36 61 82 90 BC FD B8 A7 17 5F 6D 59 B8 69 F3 66a. .._mY.i. [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 4] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_session_key(59) cred_session_key [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_session_key(61) clnt_chal: 58C1DAD55DCA026A [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_session_key(62) srv_chal : B058ECCC71090C85 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_session_key(63) clnt+srv : 081AC7A2CED30EEF [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_session_key(64) sess_key : 8532903AE6372823 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 4] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_create(90) cred_create [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_create(92) sess_key : 8532903AE6372823 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_create(93) stor_cred: 58C1DAD55DCA026A [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_create(94) timestamp: 0 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_create(95) timecred : 58C1DAD55DCA026A [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_create(96) calc_cred: 45AE7B884A8EC8A9 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 4] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_assert(121) cred_assert [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_assert(123) challenge : 8FAE4B1B4C05E3B3 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_assert(124) calculated: 45AE7B884A8EC8A9 [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] libsmb/credentials.c:cred_assert(133) credentials check wrong [2003/01/27 22:48:50, 5] rpc_parse/parse_prs.c:prs_debug(81) 00 net_io_r_auth_2 I have the full log but it's 58K (too big for the list) let me know if you want it.
Re: (forw) Re: smbclient and large file support
On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Brian Poole wrote: > <..> > > > + oct_it((SMB_BIG_UINT) size, 13, hb.dbuf.size); > > + oct_it((SMB_BIG_UINT) mtime, 13, hb.dbuf.mtime); > > Do you know if the tar format can have more than 11 octet digits in the > header? The 11 digits overflow at ~8.6Gb. I haven't had time to look at > that yet. The ustar header format only defines 12 characters for the size and mtime fields, and they are octal. The star archiver adds an extended header if the size is larger than 2^^36-1 (or whatever, I would imagine it should be an unsigned quantity ...), but clitar.c does not (yet) do that. It would have to both be able to write and read such headers. Regards - Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org, sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
Re: Bug in nmbd_become_dmb.c (CVS 1.7 3.somehting) [patch]
I still think we _need_ to introduce a "server role" paramter, leaving
the other active for tuning, but so that new admins will not get mad to
have a decent configuration.
server role = share|server|member|PDC|BDC|ADS
or something like that.
Simo.
On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 23:20, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 03:08:52PM -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, 22 Jan 2003, Damjan "Zobo" Cvetko wrote:
>
> > > I dont know if this is the rigth list for this..
> > > I'm using the latest samba 3.x. from CVS.. (because of the wins replication)
> > > I have it set up as master browser, but it wont register itself (to the WINS
> > > server running in the same nmbd) as DMB (WROKGROUP#1b..)
>
> > Why not just set
>
> > domain master = yes
> > domain logons = yes
>
> > ?
>
> > By not setting domain logons, you've created a box that Windows clients
> > will believe to be a PDC but one that will not be listed in the DOMAIN#1c
> > list of addresses.
>
> > >/* Do the domain master names. */
> > > - if(lp_server_role() == ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC)
> > > + if (lp_domain_master() == True)
> > >{
>
> > I don't think i will commit this patch unless you can further convince me.
>
> It's a change from Samba's previous behavior.
>
> If there's ever anything else on the network that needs the #1b name, it
> will be broken by Samba registering the #1b name. Period. It doesn't
> matter whether the option to enable this is called 'domain master = yes'
> or 'domain logons = yes'; if the user enables the corresponding setting
> in a domain with a preexisting PDC, it will break one way or the other.
> So changing the meaning of the option doesn't really protect against
> this, but it does break configurations that previously worked for people
> who need DMBs but don't need logon servers.
>
> Much better, IMHO, would be to leave the code as it was in 2.2, but
> make sure 3.0's *documentation* strongly encourages using 'domain logons'
> instead of 'domain master'. Granted, in all the cases I've seen,
> enabling 'domain logons' in addition to 'domain master' hasn't done any
> harm; but is it really worth gratuitiously breaking users' 2.2 configs to
> get this point across?
>
> FWIW, this is the third time I've seen this issue come up with the 3.0
> alphas.
--
Simo Sorce- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Samba Team- http://www.samba.org
Italian Site - http://samba.xsec.it
list filtering
Because of the enormous amount of traffic being generated by Windows viruses[0] I have turned on Mailman attachment filtering on the high-traffic samba.org lists. Lists will now pass only text/plain MIME parts through to the list. multipart/alternative messages with both text and html forms will have the HTML form removed, and messages in only HTML will be squashed to text. Messages which cannot be handled in any of these ways will be rejected. To send patches or log files to the list, you need to either insert them inline into your message, or make sure they're marked as text/plain. On most systems, just making the name be *.txt should be sufficient. I hope everybody's enjoying their SQL Server experience :-) -- Martin samba.org postmaster [0] ... automated notifications about viruses, users complaining about viruses, users complaining about automated notification, users complaining about users complaining, scanners complaining about perfectly ordinary attachments, etc
