Le mardi 28 juillet 2009 07:03:29, Ryan Suarez a écrit :
> Greetings,
>
> I upgraded my samba v3.2.4 to v3.4.0.
>
> Now point'n'print does not work. I get the error 'Windows cannot
> connect to the printer. Operation could not be completed (error
> 0x06f7)' when I try to connect to any printer
Hi all.
We currently have WinXP users connecting to a RHEL4 samba share
authenticating to active directory. (the WinXP clients are NOT part of the
domain, and are out of our control). It all works fine.
We are now testing a CentOS5 samba share, with the sama domain controller as
before, but the W
Greetings,
I upgraded my samba v3.2.4 to v3.4.0.
Now point'n'print does not work. I get the error 'Windows cannot
connect to the printer. Operation could not be completed (error
0x06f7)' when I try to connect to any printer share from a vista
32bit client.
So I download v3.3.6 and inst
John H Terpstra wrote:
> Please help us to understand why an Internet firewall should be a
> dedicated machine. There might be one or two people on this list who
> would disagree with this assertion.
I smell flame bait... ;-)
Simply put, because an Internet firewall is providing a security
func
On 07/27/2009 06:39 PM, David Christensen wrote:
> MargoAndTodd wrote:
>> My Samba server/firewall has three (two real, one virtual) network
>> cards:
>> eth0.5: connects to a terminal server
>> eth0: internal network with about 10 XP workstations
>> eth1: the Internet
>
> An Internet firewall sho
What is the domain controller, Samba, AD, or an NT domain?
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:51:45 -0300, "Herbert G. Fischer"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've spent two days trying to figure out how to solve this,
> researching on the web, etc, and found no answer... :S
>
> I've setup a Ubuntu 9.04 with Samba a
MargoAndTodd wrote:
> My Samba server/firewall has three (two real, one virtual) network
> cards:
> eth0.5: connects to a terminal server
> eth0: internal network with about 10 XP workstations
> eth1: the Internet
An Internet firewall should be a dedicated machine. I use IPCop:
http://www.ip
Hi All,
My Samba server/firewall has three (two real, one
virtual) network cards:
eth0.5: connects to a terminal server
eth0: internal network with about 10 XP workstations
eth1: the Internet
Samba is set to talk to only 12.0.0.1, eth0.5
and eth0.
I have my firewall iptables rules set so that
Hi,
I've spent two days trying to figure out how to solve this,
researching on the web, etc, and found no answer... :S
I've setup a Ubuntu 9.04 with Samba and Winbind, joined the domain
(using RPC) and when I try to list users and groups using wbinfo I got
nothing.
I already tryed delet
Quoting "Hambleton, Tom" :
I am consistently getting "libtalloc.so.1: No such file or
directory" when attempting to 'make' any version of samba.
I've tried all of the suggestions from the list archives on this subject.
Using Solaris 9 sparc.
Current versions are:
gcc 3.4.6 (sunfree
I am consistently getting "libtalloc.so.1: No such file or directory" when
attempting to 'make' any version of samba.
I've tried all of the suggestions from the list archives on this subject.
Using Solaris 9 sparc.
Current versions are:
gcc 3.4.6 (sunfreeware pkg)
samba-3.2.11 (
OK Guys,thank you for all the responses.
I'm going to grab the rpms and attempt an install so it may be a while before I
follow up.
Thanks
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 22:00:55 +0200
> From: ob...@samba.org
> To: j...@samba.org
> CC: wikk...@hotmail.com; samba@lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: [Samba] N
Michael Heydon wrote:
> Blotto wrote:
> >only users listed in the smb.conf file for that share
> >have access regardless of the acl permissions set
> >
> Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I think that is how it is supposed
> to work.
>
> When you define which users can access a share that i
John H Terpstra - Samba Team wrote:
> On 07/27/2009 01:41 PM, Wikked one wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi Guys,
> > I would love to update to the latest version ,nothing would make
> > me happier in fact.
> > However each time I've made an attempt to build samba without an RPM I've
> > been led
>
On 07/27/2009 01:41 PM, Wikked one wrote:
>
>
> Hi Guys,
> I would love to update to the latest version ,nothing would make me
> happier in fact.
> However each time I've made an attempt to build samba without an RPM I've
> been led
> down the rabbit hole of dependencies ,so I've "lear
Hi Guys,
I would love to update to the latest version ,nothing would make me
happier in fact.
However each time I've made an attempt to build samba without an RPM I've been
led
down the rabbit hole of dependencies ,so I've "learned" to use the version that
comes with the operating sys
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 11:09:59AM -0500, Jonathon Doran wrote:
> Quoting John Drescher :
>
>> One thing you can do to try to generate help is to try to debug the
>> problem yourself. I mean do your logs show anything suspicious when
>> the failure occurs? If so post that output. Also if you could
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Jonathon Doran wrote:
> Quoting John Drescher :
>
>> One thing you can do to try to generate help is to try to debug the
>> problem yourself. I mean do your logs show anything suspicious when
>> the failure occurs? If so post that output. Also if you could update
>
Quoting John Drescher :
One thing you can do to try to generate help is to try to debug the
problem yourself. I mean do your logs show anything suspicious when
the failure occurs? If so post that output. Also if you could update
your samba to the current version (3.0.35) and test that.
Isn't 3
Arendt, Volker wrote:
Hi Bill,
please let me know when your AMP bundle is done and you have the 3.4.0
ctdb-samba version packaged. Then we could go to work and find out how
a "best practice" for setting up a clustered samba on AIX needs to
look like. :-)
Ok, perhaps we could add/suppleme
Hi Bill,
please let me know when your AMP bundle is done and you have the 3.4.0
ctdb-samba version packaged. Then we could go to work and find out how a
"best practice" for setting up a clustered samba on AIX needs to look like.
:-)
regards
Volker
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: William
Arendt, Volker wrote:
Hi all,
as it happens very often the problem sits about 30 centimeters from
the monitor (thanks for that, Volker)!
I incorrectly assumed that i can access the same directory on a GPFS
file system from two different nodes. As such my current "problem" is
solved. Curren
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Wikked one wrote:
> Ok understood,thanks for the response!
>
One thing you can do to try to generate help is to try to debug the
problem yourself. I mean do your logs show anything suspicious when
the failure occurs? If so post that output. Also if you could updat
Hi all,
as it happens very often the problem sits about 30 centimeters from the
monitor (thanks for that, Volker)!
I incorrectly assumed that i can access the same directory on a GPFS file
system from two different nodes. As such my current "problem" is solved.
Currently we have to isolate access
Ok understood,thanks for the response!
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:46:55 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Samba] No responses, not a one?
> From: dresche...@gmail.com
> To: wikk...@hotmail.com; samba@lists.samba.org
>
> >I've asked about a couple issues on this list and now I'm wondering if
> > I'm se
William Jojo wrote:
Arendt, Volker wrote:
Hi all,
we have a public share for all of our users. The share definition is as
follows:
[public]
comment =
browseable = yes
writeable = yes
path = /gpfs/fbb/apps/public
force group = @BUILTIN+Users
valid users = @BUILTIN+Users
write list = @BUILTIN+Us
Arendt, Volker wrote:
Hi all,
we have a public share for all of our users. The share definition is as
follows:
[public]
comment =
browseable = yes
writeable = yes
path = /gpfs/fbb/apps/public
force group = @BUILTIN+Users
valid users = @BUILTIN+Users
write list = @BUILTIN+Users
All of our data
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 03:19:15PM +0200, Arendt, Volker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> we have a public share for all of our users. The share definition is as
> follows:
>
> [public]
> comment =
> browseable = yes
> writeable = yes
> path = /gpfs/fbb/apps/public
> force group = @BUILTIN+Users
> valid user
> I've asked about a couple issues on this list and now I'm wondering if I'm
> sending to the right address?
> What's a guy got to do to get a response?
>
This is the correct address, however this list you do will not always
get a reply. I believe it depends on if any users know the answer
and
Hi all,
we have a public share for all of our users. The share definition is as
follows:
[public]
comment =
browseable = yes
writeable = yes
path = /gpfs/fbb/apps/public
force group = @BUILTIN+Users
valid users = @BUILTIN+Users
write list = @BUILTIN+Users
All of our data resides on a GPFS file s
Hi,
I've asked about a couple issues on this list and now I'm wondering if I'm
sending to the right address?
What's a guy got to do to get a response?
> Dear List,
>
>I’ve
> got a Samba NT4 domain with multiple samba member servers serving files using
> domain security. Cur
I was using Samba-3.0.14a perfectly fine.
Now, I'm trying to use Samba-3.0.34.
I can do an "ADS" join fine with Samba-3.0.34, but I cannot do my old
non-ADS join anymore. Winbindd starts and stays running fine, but when
I run net to do the non-ADS join I'm running into a strange "interfaces" issue
Michael Adam wrote:
> OPC oota wrote:
> > I found typo in net.8.xml of samba-3.4.0 source.
> >
> > Note that you also need to use standard net paramters to connect and
> > authenticate
> > -
> > parame
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:02:28PM +0530, ravi channavajhala wrote:
> My setup is fairly straight forward; I have a Solaris 10 (SPARC) being
used
> as a samba server with AD sign on. Users can log in fine and map their
> directories through windows clients. All the user home dirs and critical
>
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 05:02:28PM +0530, ravi channavajhala wrote:
> My setup is fairly straight forward; I have a Solaris 10 (SPARC) being used
> as a samba server with AD sign on. Users can log in fine and map their
> directories through windows clients. All the user home dirs and critical
> p
OPC oota wrote:
> I found typo in net.8.xml of samba-3.4.0 source.
>
> Note that you also need to use standard net paramters to connect and
> authenticate
> -
> parameters
> to the remote machine that
My setup is fairly straight forward; I have a Solaris 10 (SPARC) being used
as a samba server with AD sign on. Users can log in fine and map their
directories through windows clients. All the user home dirs and critical
project dirs are on a NetAPP filer.
When user tries to write a file, it i
Hi,
We have set up a Samba PDC (3.3.4) with tdb backend working fine.
Now we are going to add a Samba domain member (3.2.4) where users are
authenticated through winbind against the PDC user-database. After having
joined the domain this works fine but, when we issue
wbinfo -u
or
wbinfo -g
on
Blotto wrote:
only users listed in the smb.conf file for that share
have access regardless of the acl permissions set
Maybe I'm not reading this right, but I think that is how it is supposed
to work.
When you define which users can access a share that is checked when they
attempt to connec
>These values were set using the permissions editor in windows
>
>the problem i have is that the permissions do nothing
>
>if i set a users from the domain to have full control of a folder, they
>still cant access it, only users listed in the smb.conf file for that
>share have access regardless o
Hi,
i have a samba server setup on debian to use a server 2k3 AD for auth.
This works perfectly fine
what doesnt work, is ACL permissions.
I have the drives mounted as acl, acl is settable and readable on both
windows and debian;
# getfacl web/
# file: web/
# owner: root
# group: root
41 matches
Mail list logo
