On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:51:49PM +0100, Nicki Messerschmidt, Linksystem Muenchen
GmbH wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Let me guess. If I do it this way samba acts as a pdc but the
clients do not try to update their accounts? Are there any
drawbacks using this technique?
That makes them
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
Nicki Messerschmidt wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Let me guess. If I do it this way samba acts as a pdc but the
clients do not try to update their accounts? Are there any
drawbacks using this technique?
That makes them act
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Langasek wrote:
Nicki Messerschmidt wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
Let me guess. If I do it this way samba acts as a pdc but the
clients do not try to update their accounts? Are there any
drawbacks using this technique?
That makes them act
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have a really ugly problem, which, as I know is partially selfmade.
But to the problem:
I have five servers running samba-2.2.3a-12 (latest Debian Woody
release) which are controlled by one master server. All of the five
servers act as pdc for an own nt-domain. Now to
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:45:08PM +0100, Nicki Messerschmidt, Linksystem Muenchen
GmbH wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
I have a really ugly problem, which, as I know is partially selfmade.
But to the problem:
I have five servers running samba-2.2.3a-12 (latest Debian Woody
release) which
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 03:46:26PM +0100, Nicki Messerschmidt, Linksystem Muenchen
GmbH wrote:
Hi there,
I have a really ugly problem, which, as I know is partially selfmade.
But to the problem:
I have five servers running samba-2.2.3a-12 (latest Debian Woody
release) which are controlled by
