HaywireMac wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:06:50 -0400
Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
I'll take a stab, since I'm supposed to be an MCSE... ;-)
In a Windows domain, as opposed to workgroup, there is a Domain
Master Browser which controls the network directory structure and/or
routes to sh
Mark Weaver wrote:
not bad. what you said brought back memories of my NT server class in
college. Don't remember much from the class, but what you said makes
sense and gives me an idea of whats going on.
Hey, we're discussing windows networking, and *nothing* there makes
sense ;-)
Bye
--
Que l
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:06:50 -0400
Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> > I'll take a stab, since I'm supposed to be an MCSE... ;-)
> >
> > In a Windows domain, as opposed to workgroup, there is a Domain
> > Master Browser which controls the network directory structure and/or
> > routes to
HaywireMac wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:58:16 -0400
Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
I've been running Samba on my LAN for over a year now and I've no idea
what you're talking about. I have a feeling I'm about to learn
something very interesting. What is it you're talking about?
I've got
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:58:16 -0400
Mark Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> I've been running Samba on my LAN for over a year now and I've no idea
>
> what you're talking about. I have a feeling I'm about to learn
> something very interesting. What is it you're talking about?
>
> I've got t
James Sparenberg wrote:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 07:11, David Rankin wrote:
os level = 34
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
wins support = Yes
Only reason I use 65 is that I read somewhere in my FreeBSD days that
anything less wouldn't win out over NT. kept using it ever since.
James
I've
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 07:11, David Rankin wrote:
> os level = 34
> preferred master = Yes
> domain master = Yes
> wins support = Yes
>
Only reason I use 65 is that I read somewhere in my FreeBSD days that
anything less wouldn't win out over NT. kept using it ever since.
James
Want to bu
On Wednesday 01 Oct 2003 2:43 pm, Gary Hodder wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:42, Richard Bown wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
> > which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
> > do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections
> >
Thanks to everyone who answered
Richard
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 14:43, Gary Hodder wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:42, Richard Bown wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
> > which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
> > do I set to make sure the gatew
ROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 8:42 AM
Subject: [expert] Samba Again !
> Hi All,
> its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
> which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
> do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways w
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:42, Richard Bown wrote:
> Hi All,
> its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
> which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
> do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
> master browser,?
> my laptop keeps trying to take control.
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:42, Richard Bown wrote:
> Hi All,
> its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
> which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
> do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
> master browser,?
> my laptop keeps trying to take control.
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 06:42 am, Richard Bown wrote:
> Hi All,
> its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
> which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
> do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
> master browser,?
> my laptop keeps trying to take
Hi All,
its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
master browser,?
my laptop keeps trying to take control.
Unfortunately, its got winxp on it as its an old pent 2 266MH
From: "Miark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
> > Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
> > it didn't make it into 9.2 main...but it'll be th
Miark wrote:
"Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
their existing user and group account databases. This enables
significan
On September 1993 plus 3677 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
>> Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
>> it didn't make it into 9.2
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 10:58, Vox wrote:
> On September 1993 plus 3677 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > "Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
> > and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
> > migrate their existing Windows NT domains
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
> Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
> it didn't make it into 9.2 main...but it'll be there for
> 9.3/10/whatever :)
The press r
On Friday 26 September 2003 12:34 pm, Miark wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
> > Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
> > it didn't make it into 9.2 main...
On September 1993 plus 3677 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
> and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
> migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
> their existing user
Miark said:
> "Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
> and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
> migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
> their existing user and group account databases. This enables
> si
"Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
their existing user and group account databases. This enables
significant cost of owne
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 23:45, Miark wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2003 19:29:06 +1000, Mark Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This must be a simple solve.. but I haven't quiet got it.. I have a
> > server that's chewing lot's of CPU power while copying files from the M$
> > machines to the Samba
On 15 Sep 2003 19:29:06 +1000, Mark Williamson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This must be a simple solve.. but I haven't quiet got it.. I have a
> server that's chewing lot's of CPU power while copying files from the M$
> machines to the Samba server..
Which M$ machines?
Miark
Want to buy you
Hello All,
This must be a simple solve.. but I haven't quiet got it.. I have a
server that's chewing lot's of CPU power while copying files from the M$
machines to the Samba server..
Tasks: 74 total, 2 running, 72 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 0.0% user, 100.0% system, 0.0
Hello All,
I'm facing a little problem with CUPS + Samba. I use CUPS as a Print Server,
samba makes it accessible to Windows clients. Windows clients print documents from
Office Applications and from terminal, connected on a SCO box via telnet.
When I did an update about
Thanks ,
I've been hammering the keyboard all day,
That got the login on the host machine from the host machine OK.;
Win98 sitting on win4lin can see the host, and the host can see the
virtual win98 machine, but their both refusing acess both ways.
Time to check the firewall again maybe,,
Richard
From: "Richard Bown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] samba]# smbpasswd richard
> New SMB password:
> Retype new SMB password:
> getsmbfilepwent: malformed password entry (no terminating :)
> Failed to find entry for user richard.
> Failed to modify password entry for user richard
>
Thanks everyone who offered help and assistance.
I've found the reason why smbd would'nt
Vmware also want to be a smb server
the reason nmbd was stuck in a loop
Jul 30 09:23:23 gb7tf nmbd[5254]: [2003/07/30 09:23:23, 0]
libsmb/nmblib.c:send_udp(756)
Jul 30 09:23:23 gb7tf nmbd[5254]: Packet se
Richard Bown wrote:
Thanks James,
log.smbd showed this:-
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.7a-security-rollup-fix started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(751)
standard input is not a socket, as
On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 02:29, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:21, Richard Bown wrote:
> > Hi James
> > You were right something was using the port.
> >
Well for the moment there's no contention for smbd , but nmbd is still
producing
Jul 30 09:23:23 gb7tf nmbd[5254]: [2003/07/30
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:21, Richard Bown wrote:
> Hi James
> You were right something was using the port.
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# lsof -i :139
> COMMANDPID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
> vmware-sm 3554 root5u IPv4 6966 TCP 172.16.27.1:netbios-ssn
> (LISTEN)
>
>
Hi James
You were right something was using the port.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# lsof -i :139
COMMANDPID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
vmware-sm 3554 root5u IPv4 6966 TCP 172.16.27.1:netbios-ssn
(LISTEN)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# kill -9 3554
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# lsof -i
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:46, Richard Bown wrote:
> Thanks James,
>
> log.smbd showed this:-
>
> [2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
> smbd version 2.2.7a-security-rollup-fix started.
> Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
> [2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:00, Richard Bown wrote:
> Hi James, unfortunatly , the're installed :(
>
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 17:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
> > >
Thanks James,
log.smbd showed this:-
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.7a-security-rollup-fix started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(751)
standard input is not a socket, assuming -D option
[
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 18:10, Klar Brian D Contr MSG/SICN wrote:
> This line is curious. Why is a broadcast ip responding?
>
> > 192.168.1.255(138) ERRNO=Operation not permitted
>
Brian its a broadcast not a response, confusing as it split on 2 lines
Jul 29 14:04:12 gb7tf nmbd[4665]: Packet se
On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 4:34 pm, Richard Bown wrote:
> I think the hostss file is OK Anne
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# cat /etc/hosts
> 192.168.1.1 gb7tf.org.uk gb7tf
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
>
>
> I checked the process list and nmbd -D is running , but no sign of
> smbd. Looks
TED]
Subject: Re: [expert] samba probs again
Hi James, unfortunatly , the're installed :(
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 17:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago,
Hi James, unfortunatly , the're installed :(
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 17:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
> > Hi,
> > I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
> > fault , made it unstable wth a mix from cooker.
> >
> > Since
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
> Hi,
> I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
> fault , made it unstable wth a mix from cooker.
>
> Since then I hav'nt had samba running as I also scapped the windows
> machine when I installed win4lin.
> Now I find
I think the hostss file is OK Anne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# cat /etc/hosts
192.168.1.1 gb7tf.org.uk gb7tf
127.0.0.1 localhost
I checked the process list and nmbd -D is running , but no sign of smbd.
Looks like its getting killed as it tries to start.
I tried starting sm
On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 2:25 pm, Richard Bown wrote:
> Sorry I'm at it again but just spotted in syslog this, SWAT is
> still saying smbd not running
> but
> Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: [2003/07/29 14:21:32, 0]
> lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(804)
> Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: bind fa
Sorry I'm at it again but just spotted in syslog this, SWAT is still
saying smbd not running
but
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: [2003/07/29 14:21:32, 0]
lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(804)
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: bind failed on port 139 socket_addr
= 0.0.0.0.
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf
Hi,
I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
fault , made it unstable wth a mix from cooker.
Since then I hav'nt had samba running as I also scapped the windows
machine when I installed win4lin.
Now I find I need samba to print from win4lin, and smbd just wont run,
nmb
Arrgh! My Samba-LDAP setup won't add machines automatically any more
and I've spent all day today trying to find the bug.
Prelim stuff checks to make sure it isn't something other than Samba-LDAP:
The setting in dhcpd.conf appears to be correct:
host kaliklak
{
hardware et
No, I'm afraid that's not it...
Thanks,
Mark
Guillaume Marcais wrote:
> work with the stock kernel? FWIW, here's what I did:
> - change Makefile as suggested by kernel (comple module only) howto,
> changing SUBDIR=fs/smb, an
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 14:15, Mark Chou wrote:
> I've got a few questions, more or less related to samba 2GB file size
> limit and MDK 9.1.
>
> I'm using Mandrake 9.1 as a base for mythtv, a linux personal video
> recorder (a la tivo). As such, I routinely need to access video files
> greater than
I've got a few questions, more or less related to samba 2GB file size
limit and MDK 9.1.
I'm using Mandrake 9.1 as a base for mythtv, a linux personal video
recorder (a la tivo). As such, I routinely need to access video files
greater than 2GB on my Windows shares (as well as linux machines).
1. D
I've got a few questions, more or less related to samba 2GB file size
limit and MDK 9.1.
I'm using Mandrake 9.1 as a base for mythtv, a linux personal video
recorder (a la tivo). As such, I routinely need to access video files
greater than 2GB on my Windows shares (as well as linux machines).
What permissions have to be set to use a printer on the samba host , ie
this linux box, from a winblows machine.
The printer is configured OK on the windows machine, but getting the
message "epsom_c82 on firewall Access Denied, unable to connect"
The section of smb.conf below
[printers]
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:24:12PM +0100, richard bown wrote:
> > DEVICE=eth0
> BOOTPROTO=static
> IPADDR=44.131.90.129
> NETMASK=44.131.90.0
> NETWORK=44.131.90.0
> BROADCAST=255.255.255.255
> ONBOOT=yes
> MII_NOT_SUPPORTED=yes
If that's not a typo the NETMASK and the NETWORK appear to have the
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:52, Ray Warren wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:48:02PM +0100, richard bown wrote:
>
> >
> > AFAIK this is the reason I cant get the two machines to see each other.
> > When the MDK network config wizard ,from the MDK Control Center, is run
> > the subnet for eth0 (44.
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:48:02PM +0100, richard bown wrote:
>
> AFAIK this is the reason I cant get the two machines to see each other.
> When the MDK network config wizard ,from the MDK Control Center, is run
> the subnet for eth0 (44.131.90.0) is entered correctly, BUT the netmask
> is change
Hi all
saga continues.
I am more convinced this is a routing issue.
No matter what I do to alter the routing, ie deleting routing subnets
and replacing with host routes netbios broadcasts are being made in the
wrong subnet.
ie from route -en
Destination Gateway Genmask flags MSS Windo
Thanks to a local LUG member, got Samba going. Samba does not by default
create a new smb user when you run smbpasswd. You must create it
manually. I'm sure many ways would have worked but smbpasswd -a worked
here and then with a few tweaks she came up roses.
Cheers for the help all,
Jason
Ga
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 09:31, Frankie wrote:
> if you use windows find to look for the machine.. can it see it then??
>
> Start->search/find->Computers... that bit is'nt in winblows 2k, but it dos'nt
in network neighbourhood when searching there
>
> and enter the hostname of the linux server (in
let us know if you can see the machines both ways.
rgds
Franki
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anne Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 11:33 pm, Kwan Lowe wro
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 11:33 pm, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:44, richard bown wrote:
> > Now I'm confused :(
> >
> > The windows box only has 2 users, both have a null string as a password,
> > ie I login as "richard" with a blank password.
> > When I login to this box as a user "ric
Hi Kwan, just a quick attempt before going to work, had these results
]
Does this help ??
$ smbclient //FW-GB7TF/public -U richard
Server's Role (logon server) conflicts with share-level security
added interface ip=44.131.90.129 bcast=44.131.91.255 nmask=255.255.254.0
Password:
Domain=[MDKGROUP
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 10:25:26 +1200, you wrote:
>ok, got the winpcs changed to the MDKGROUP. Without stuffing about
>trying to get users to have access to their home directories, is there
>an EASY way to allow anyone on the LAN to have access to the
>/home/public directory for sharing files from
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:21, Jason Greenwood wrote:
> This is the exact text:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] diggy10]$ smbpasswd
> Old SMB password:
> New SMB password:
> Retype new SMB password:
> machine 127.0.0.1 rejected the password change: Error was : RAP86: The
> specified password is invalid.
> Fa
This is the exact text:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] diggy10]$ smbpasswd
Old SMB password:
New SMB password:
Retype new SMB password:
machine 127.0.0.1 rejected the password change: Error was : RAP86: The
specified password is invalid.
Failed to change password for diggy10
[EMAIL PROTECTED] diggy10]$
WHY o
Yup, I tried that too
This is what it says:
machine 127.0.0.1 rejected the password change : Error was RAP86 : the
specified password is invalid
WTF??
Cheers
Jason
David Rankin wrote:
Wait, Wait, Wait
You don't need to disable the samba password. The way it works is to just
make
Wait, Wait, Wait
You don't need to disable the samba password. The way it works is to just
make sure the windows password ('95 OSR2 and beyond) is the same as the samba
password. The windows login (user name) should be the same as the unix and
samba username. Just make it simple. The unix,
do you change the workgroup
> settings for users on their win98 boxen?? I obviously need to change
> them to MDKGROUP for it to work right but I see no way to change it on
> the offending win98 boxes.
>
> Cheers
>
> Jason
>
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message ---
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:44, richard bown wrote:
> Now I'm confused :(
>
> The windows box only has 2 users, both have a null string as a password,
> ie I login as "richard" with a blank password.
> When I login to this box as a user "richard" and the password is
> "richard".
> I dont think linux
ok, got the winpcs changed to the MDKGROUP. Without stuffing about
trying to get users to have access to their home directories, is there
an EASY way to allow anyone on the LAN to have access to the
/home/public directory for sharing files from there??
Cheers
Jason
richard bown wrote:
On Mon,
richard bown wrote:
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
the printer or files on the linux machine.
Had a similar problem running v9.0 with most recent samba. Co
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 22:15, Jason Greenwood wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> I have been watching this thread closely as I too have been unable to
> get samba working properly here at work. How do you change the workgroup
> settings for users on their win98 boxen?? I obviously need to change
> them to M
work. How do you change the workgroup
settings for users on their win98 boxen?? I obviously need to change
them to MDKGROUP for it to work right but I see no way to change it on
the offending win98 boxes.
Cheers
Jason
Original Message
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
Date: Mon, 31
the offending win98 boxes.
Cheers
Jason
Original Message
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:33:35 +0100
From: Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTE
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 21:24, Frankie wrote:
> some ideas..
>
> 1. make sure the windows machines and the linux box have the same workgroup
> name..
>in this caes MDKGROUP
> 2. Try it with the firewall off.. clear your iptables rules and
>eliminate the firewall as the cause.
> 3. add these
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 20:33, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > # Unix_name = SMB_name1 SMB_name2 ...
> > root = administrator admin
> > nobody = guest pcguest smbguest
> >
>
> It looks as though your windows users don't have accounts on your box? They
> need a user account, with password and username exa
, the
windows PC's should
still be able to see the linux box..just not access it.
hope that is of some help..
rgds
Franki
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anne Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: R
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 8:32 pm, richard bown wrote:
> Hi All
>
> , thanks Kwan & Torstein for the advice , but so far the windows machine
> still cannot see this machine.
> I have opened ports 137 & 139 on the firewall , I've altered the
> smb.conf as suggested, included the chmod and chown foe th
Hi All
, thanks Kwan & Torstein for the advice , but so far the windows machine
still cannot see this machine.
I have opened ports 137 & 139 on the firewall , I've altered the
smb.conf as suggested, included the chmod and chown foe the public dir,
but still nothing.
The modified smb.conf is as
Maybe the most important setting for me in smb.conf is the
security setting
Setting this to share use to solve the problem with problem with win2k
machines not being able to mount network drives.
try to add security = share
Vennlig Hilsen
Torstein Hernes Dybdahl
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 11:26, richard bown wrote:
> # Global parameters
> [global]
> workgroup = MDKGROUP
> netbios name = FW-GB7TF
> server string = Samba Server %v
> encrypt passwords = Yes
> map to guest = Bad User
> log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
Hi Greg
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 15:56, Greg Meyer wrote:
> On Saturday 29 March 2003 10:23 am, richard bown wrote:
> > Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
> >
> > Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
>
> Why do it off-line. That is what this list is for.
Well there are
Thanks for the quick reply
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 15:44, Kwan Lowe wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 10:23, richard bown wrote:
> > Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
> >
> > Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
> > using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000
On Saturday 29 March 2003 10:23 am, richard bown wrote:
> Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
>
> Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
Why do it off-line. That is what this list is for.
> using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
> the p
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 10:23, richard bown wrote:
> Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
>
> Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
> using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
> the printer or files on the linux machine.
> Ive rtfm'd several d
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
the printer or files on the linux machine.
Ive rtfm'd several docs which just causes more confusion.
It just about worked ,
For some reason I've noticed in 9.0 and now in 9.1 that samba has extremely
poor performance. I thought it was just 9.0 and waited until 9.1 came out.
It took me longer to copy the iso image files over to an XP box from my linux
box than it took to download them!
Has anyone else noticed poor
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 03:51, Azrael wrote:
> I click on a folder in nautilus, and tell it to share.
> smb is running.
> I try and see the share from the Mac, and can't get a thing.
>
> This is frustrating, I don't /really/ expect things to be this easy..
> but.. I must confess.. I did wish it woul
I click on a folder in nautilus, and tell it to share.
smb is running.
I try and see the share from the Mac, and can't get a thing.
This is frustrating, I don't /really/ expect things to be this easy..
but.. I must confess.. I did wish it would be. Because it looks as if it
should be.
There's pro
On Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Norman Zhang wrote:
> Thanks. I guess src.rpm is not needed as it contains source for compiling.
No,... you only need the src.rpm if you plan on rebuilding it.
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
Online Security Resource Book; http:/
Thanks. I guess src.rpm is not needed as it contains source for compiling.
- Original Message -
From: "Vincent Danen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [expert] samba 2.2.7.a
On Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 11
On Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 11:04:13AM -0800, Norman Zhang wrote:
> Do I need to upgrade samba-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.src.rpm for the latest update? Or
> is the following packages are fine?
>
> samba-client-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
> samba-common-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
> samba-doc-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
> samba-
Hi,
Do I need to upgrade samba-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.src.rpm for the latest update? Or
is the following packages are fine?
samba-client-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
samba-common-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
samba-doc-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
samba-server-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
samba-swat-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
Regard
Sorry guys, I was dead wrong about this. Well, I was right about the
port but it was only one problem in a laundry list. Some of them had to
do with me second guessing ACLs that were not required and I think I may
have gotten some Windows formatting in my /etc/pam.d/passwd and
/etc/pam.d/syst
I have been trying to do the same thing. Could you send me the LDAP
section from your smb.conf offline? Just X out your specific info.
Thanks.
-Dave
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 14:12, Jim C wrote:
> So I've been racking my brains over why my Samba-LDAP PDC wont add a
> machine account automaticall
So I've been racking my brains over why my Samba-LDAP PDC wont add a
machine account automatically like it is supposed to. If I add the
machine by hand there is no problem with joining the domain. So what's
up? I try to log on and I don't get any error codes that pertain to
adding a user show
with the veto files token not working
correctly.
David.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J. Grant
Sent: 10 February 2003 15:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Samba hide "." prefixed dirs?
Hi,
If you mean you don't wa
Hi,
Thanks for the reply vox.
Vox wrote:
This time Anne Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
becomes daring and writes:
On Monday 10 Feb 2003 3:52 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
> If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box, it's the show
> hidden files setting in windows explorer.
I did think ther
I have a win98 box that needs to print to my local printer. I tried setting
it up under samba to use the cups printers, but couldn't get it to work.
Then Stephen Kuhn told me to load the windows printer driver onto the box,
print nothing until it had finished all its rebooting schemozzle, then
sue with the veto files token
>> not working
>> correctly.
>>
>> David.
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of J. Grant
>> Sent: 10 February 2003 15:53
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
Of J. Grant
Sent: 10 February 2003 15:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Samba hide "." prefixed dirs?
Hi,
> If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box, it's the show
hidden
> files setting in windows explorer.
I did think there was an smb.c
1 - 100 of 555 matches
Mail list logo
