.
-Original Message-
From: Josh Kelley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 9:30 PM
To: Matt Lozier
Cc: samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: Re: [Samba] Access control question.
On Nov 26, 2007 3:13 PM, Matt Lozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for this. I did think about
.
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Sherlock-CF [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 8:34 AM
To: Matt Lozier; samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: RE: [Samba] Access control question.
Hi Matt,
You may wish to look into the 'setfacl' command.
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/man-cgi
On Nov 26, 2007 3:13 PM, Matt Lozier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for this. I did think about using ACLs, but even if I set this up
(for *every* directory that our users need access to) won't they still be
able to *see* those directories even if they don't have r/w/x permission?
Add hide
] Access control question.
Is it out of the question to create many different shares and then
secure the system on a per-share basis?
I'm securing shares individually using Active Directory.
In each share config I have:
valid [EMAIL PROTECTED] @MR_ADGROUP_FOR_READING
write [EMAIL PROTECTED]
read
Subject: RE: [Samba] Access control question.
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your response. The only problem with going
this route is that
I really need to have finer grain control over what the users
are able to
access.
I have situations where user1 needs to have access to
/smbshare
Is it out of the question to create many different shares and then
secure the system on a per-share basis?
I'm securing shares individually using Active Directory.
In each share config I have:
valid [EMAIL PROTECTED] @MR_ADGROUP_FOR_READING
write [EMAIL PROTECTED]
read [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Create
; samba@lists.samba.org
Subject: RE: [Samba] Access control question.
Is it out of the question to create many different shares and then
secure the system on a per-share basis?
I'm securing shares individually using Active Directory.
In each share config I have:
valid [EMAIL PROTECTED
