On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Tim Potter wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:45:54AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
>
> > > I see an entry in the log.winbindd that states:
> >
> > The secrets database would appear to have crap! Try rejoining the domain
> > and seeing if that works.
>
> You are getting t
On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 10:45:54AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> > I see an entry in the log.winbindd that states:
>
> The secrets database would appear to have crap! Try rejoining the domain
> and seeing if that works.
You are getting the different secrets confused. The secrets called
SECRE
thanks andreas I'll look to them asap.
On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 20:52, andreas moroder wrote:
> Hello Simo,
>
> it looks good for the start, but ... now you have even more ignored return
> values derived from the functions you changed from void to int.
> t looks like I opened pandorra's box.
>
>
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Orwig, Paul wrote:
> I am not certain of the annonymous queries.
username = secrets_fetch(SECRETS_AUTH_USER, NULL);
password = secrets_fetch(SECRETS_AUTH_PASSWORD, NULL);
if (username && *username) {
pwd_set_cleartext(&creds->pwd, pass
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 04:52:21PM -0700, Orwig, Paul wrote:
> I am not certain of the annonymous queries.
> I see an entry in the log.winbindd that states:
>
> [2002/04/05 17:59:35, 3] nsswitch/winbindd_cm.c:cm_init_creds(211)
> IPC$ connections done anonymously
>
> followed by a message:
>
I am not certain of the annonymous queries.
I see an entry in the log.winbindd that states:
[2002/04/05 17:59:35, 3] nsswitch/winbindd_cm.c:cm_init_creds(211)
IPC$ connections done anonymously
followed by a message:
[2002/04/05 17:59:35, 3] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_out(830)
Connecting to
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Orwig, Paul wrote:
> 1) It works until I have to stop and restart it.
Do you mean when you have to stop and restart winbindd? I have not had
that problem.
> 2) We have four domain controllers. I went through each of them, one-by-one
> with the same problem.
Do you have a n
I'm running samba 2.0.7 on Redhat 7.0 with a
1.0 celeron as the cpu. Win98 and Win2000 clients with celeron or pentium
cpus send and retreive data from the samba server quickly, however clients with
AMD cpus send data quickly, but the retrieval is slow. Oplocks are set to
yes..if that mak
1) It works until I have to stop and restart it.
2) We have four domain controllers. I went through each of them, one-by-one
with the same problem.
I'm really curious why it chooses annonymous queries when I see:
ROOT# wbinfo -t
Secret is good
Paul
-Original Message-
From: MCCALL,DON (H
1) We have joined the domain. Samba is running fine without winbind.
2) We have only this one copy of winbindd
3) We are using PAM_SMB without a problem.
4) ROOT# wbinfo -t
Secret is good
More ideas?
Paul
-Original Message-
From: Richard Sharpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday,
Hi Paul,
You say this is intermittent? You may have mentioned this earlier, but
1. once you start up winbindd, if it works, does it keep working until you
have to restart it for some reason?
What do you have for your 'password server' line in your smb.conf? If you
are using "*", could you try u
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Orwig, Paul wrote:
> Question:
> How does winbindd determine whether to do annonymous or authenticated
> queries?
> How does winbindd determine what user to authenticate with?
> Can winbindd be forced to use a specific user/password to query the PDC?
It uses the trust account
Question:
How does winbindd determine whether to do annonymous or authenticated
queries?
How does winbindd determine what user to authenticate with?
Can winbindd be forced to use a specific user/password to query the PDC?
Problem:
winbindd seems to work intermittantly.
wbinfo -u returns "Error lo
Title: ¢½¢½¢½ IB club ¢½¢½¢½
°ÅÇ°ÀÌ ÀüÇô ¾ø´Â ¼ø¼öÇÑ ÄÁÅÙÃ÷¿Í ȸ¿øÀ§ÁÖÀÇ ¾ÆÀÌÅÛ.
¾ÈÁ¤ÀûÀÎ ¼öÀͼºÀ» ±â¹ÝÀ¸·Î °³¹ßµÇ¾îÁø
ÃÊ´ëÇü Áö¿ªÆ÷Å» ³×Æ®¿öÅ© »çÀÌÆ®
8°³¿ù°£ÀÇ °³¹ß±â°£°ú 2¾ï 5õ¸¸¿øÀÇ ÀÚ±ÝÀ» Åõ¿©ÇÑ
ÃÊƯ±Þ ÇÁ·ÎÁ§Æ® »çÀÌÆ®
I've sent this mail to the main samba list today - after some more
digging I assume that it is better directed to this list (the jCIFS list
seems to also be mainly used for user questions). Sorry for
crossposting. At least I've corrected some spelling errors since...
Original Message ---
Just upgraded to yesterday's 2_2 cvs, redhat linux spec, i386
[2002/04/09 13:59:44, 5] tdb/tdbutil.c:tdb_log(477)
tdb(unknown): tdb_brlock failed (fd=19) at offset 4 rw_type=1 lck_type=13
Is 'unknown' supposed to be the name of the tdb file on which the lock
failed? Any known issues with th
Hello Simo,
it looks good for the start, but ... now you have even more ignored return
values derived from the functions you changed from void to int.
t looks like I opened pandorra's box.
Bye
Andreas
Here the new list:
tdb/tdb.c:309:2: Return value (type int) ignored: tdb_munmap(tdb)
tdb/tdb
Sounds like you are talking about ACL's. I believe by default they are enabled on a
per-share basis, however you need to be on a platform that is built with ACL support.
Regards,
Jason
> -Original Message-
> From: bigbig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: April 9, 2002, 1:46 PM
> Subject: Mo
Hi, I've been following this list for a while and haven't seen this, so
forgive me if it's been addressed.
Files with 4 letter extensions don't like to be seen on Solaris prefixed
with a wildcard, for instance on windows w/ network drive mapped.
U:\>dir
Volume in drive U is dsh2120
Volume
>> I also found that Windows 2000 returns a weird ntcreate_and_X reply: 42
>> parameter words PLUS 18 bytes that are not accounted for in the word or
>> bytes counts. It seems to me that 8 of these extra 18 bytes contain two
>> access masks (seem to be User and Guest/Everyone-else). I'm guessing
I did read much manual and visited many websites,
still not found any description about how to assign different permissions
to a group of users on file/directory under Win2K. Any help?
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Richard Sharpe writes:
>
> > OK, I have made a change to the 2.2.x code stream that tries again after
> > *SMBSERVER fails, if the server was passed in as an IP address.
> >
> > Not tested, only built!
> >
> > Of course, this will be slow, as i
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 08:00:26AM -0700, Shirish Kalele wrote:
> But the values we send don't even match up with NTFS allocation values. So
> what does getting it right mean?
Doing what NT does :-). Also, it changes the behaviour of how NT
will write into new space. This can be *very* efficient.
Richard Sharpe writes:
> OK, I have made a change to the 2.2.x code stream that tries again after
> *SMBSERVER fails, if the server was passed in as an IP address.
>
> Not tested, only built!
>
> Of course, this will be slow, as it will try to connect with the IP
> address as the called name
On Tue, Apr 09, 2002 at 09:54:54AM -0500, Andrew Esh wrote:
>
> Never mind. I tested it again this morning, and it works now. There must have been a
>sick
> DC or something. Nothing else changed.
>
> I'm still not very confident. I think this area could use some more testing. I have
>heard
> f
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Mike Rosack wrote:
> I'm trying to upgrade an smbclient-based share crawler I've written to
> libsmbclient and Alain's perl Filesys::SmbClient package. This is for the
> Georgia Tech campus network, so the crawler will span multiple subnets.
>
> The problem I'm having is tha
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Gerald Carter wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Andrew Esh wrote:
>
> > What happened to "CENTRAL+AndrewE"? Why does this code near line 919 fail? :
> >
> >
> > if (sys_getpwnam(dom_user) != NULL) {
> > pstrcpy(user, dom_user);
> > DEBUG(3,("Using unix username %
Jeremy,
Thanks for your quick reply, sorry I couldn't be as quick in confirming the
issue has been resolved in later versions specifically SAMBA 2.2.1.
Thanks,
Kevin K. Sochacki
ExxonMobil Research & Engineering
1545 Route 22 East
Annandale, NJ 08801
Room: CB042B
Phone: 908-730-2911
Fax: 908-
On Tue, 9 Apr 2002, Andrew Esh wrote:
>
> Never mind. I tested it again this morning, and it works now. There must have been a
>sick
> DC or something. Nothing else changed.
>
> I'm still not very confident. I think this area could use some more testing. I have
>heard
> from others that this
I sent a request to the list administrator to find out if non-subscribers
from the few domains that are sending this junk could be selectively
blocked late last week.
Many mail administrators are reportely blocking almost all Korean and
Chinese address ranges because of the recent increase of thi
Never mind. I tested it again this morning, and it works now. There must have been a
sick
DC or something. Nothing else changed.
I'm still not very confident. I think this area could use some more testing. I have
heard
from others that this option doesn't work for them.
Has someone been worki
But the values we send don't even match up with NTFS allocation values. So
what does getting it right mean?
Here's a patch to reply_ntcreate_and_X that returns the allocation in one of
the fields instead of the file length.
I also found that Windows 2000 returns a weird ntcreate_and_X reply: 42
On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, Andrew Esh wrote:
> What happened to "CENTRAL+AndrewE"? Why does this code near line 919 fail? :
>
>
> if (sys_getpwnam(dom_user) != NULL) {
> pstrcpy(user, dom_user);
> DEBUG(3,("Using unix username %s\n", dom_user));
> }
>
>
> If this a code ordering
http://spamassassin.sourceforge.net
bit off-topic, but read on:
installed it a few days ago .. works like a charm ..
it uses a ranking system based on multiple tests to identify spam
(from there you can bounce the mail, ignore, tag, filter..)
for instance that specific spam ended up in my trash
> Hmmn, methinks we need a better spam filter...
Let me know if you find a solution that is bullet prof :-)
--
Ulf
Hmmn, methinks we need a better spam filter...
--dave
36 matches
Mail list logo
