-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Given our 'rich' SAM backends I'd like to ask for your opinion on
changing the defaults for 'profile path' and 'logon home' to "" to
have workstation-local profiles be the default. NT does this, and we
change so much in the PDC anyway. The reason
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 12:44:55PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> Why does my LDAP server deny the following request?
Ok, this seems to be something specific to OpenLDAP 2.0. With 2.1.16
just compiled this works as expected. Could this be called a bug?
Volker
pgp0.pgp
Description:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> profilePath:: IA==
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/ldif$ ldapmodify -x -D cn=admin,dc=samba,dc=org -w secret -f
> test.ldif
> modifying entry "uid=vl,dc=kampf,dc=de"
> ldap_modify: Invalid syntax
Ooops. I had wanted to edit this completely...
Volker
-BE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi (lukeh?)!
Why does my LDAP server deny the following request?
ldapmodify sends this IA== (base64 for blank) as '04 01 20' according
to ethereal.
If I have a non-base64 value, say 'xxx', in 'profilePath' this works
perfecly fine.
This is a standa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, Metze!
... using usrmgr.exe against pdb_ldap
> I'll look at it today.
I have just tried it. I successfully set a user's description via
usrmgr.exe. I do however have problems with certain values. If for
example I want to store just a space i
On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 07:08:21AM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> I'm not sure if the new LDAP modify stuff works without problems.
> I have problems with that I can't change user entries via usrmgr.exe
> the LDAP server returns 'can't add attribute'
> (here the attribute should be modif
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
As I said in my commit message, I hate to pass down boolean flags to
inner functions to trigger something magic. Thus I had the idea to
pass down a function that decides whether to update the LDAP DB. This
way the complete logic is lexically much
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 02:21:28PM +, John H Terpstra wrote:
> > The 3.0alpha22 does not seem to execute the "add user script" when running
> > as security = domain. The same configuration used to work fine with samba
> > 2.2.7
>
> Correct. When you configure samba with "security = domain" you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, Andrew!
Thinking twice and arguing with you sometimes really helps. Thanks!
This is my second attempt that is a lot more robust and less
intrusive.
I'm really amazed how picky LDAP really is.
Volker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, Andrew (& the rest :-)
I took some minutes to extract two sets of changes from HEAD and made
them suitable for 3_0 (to make merging easier for you):
* pdb_getgr** in mapping.c
* pdb_guest.c
You only have to add pdb_guest.c after applying this c
On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 12:03:37AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> To enable that, the semantics of IS_SAM_SET changed to: Did this exist
> in LDAP? and IS_SAM_CHANGED means: Do we have to set it?
Ah, and another point: This is certainly not race-free. But
that is difficult to do wit
Hi!
The attached patch changes some semantics in pdb_get_set.
I had the problem that I could not join a HEAD PDC with NT4. HEAD
tried to do illegal operations with the LDAP account, for example it
tried to set "displayName" to "", which is not allowed. I found we
have to track what attributes exi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Here's a little ten-liner I wrote some weeks ago being annoyed by
diverging uid/gid allocation on separate member servers. I declared
one of them the ID master, and had the others ask him.
I know this is an ugly hack, but for me it worked quite w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> > But if you look at sambaAccount, it firmly ties 'uid' with 'rid',
> > which conflicts your point below.
>
> No, it doesn't. 'uid' is 'username' in ldap-speak.
Yes, I know. And I meant it this way. I only assumed that under Unix
we have a one-to-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> A schema similar to the one used for users,
But if you look at sambaAccount, it firmly ties 'uid' with 'rid',
which conflicts your point below.
> so that you can create groups, with groups members, and optionally a
> field for gid mapping perhaps.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Using the group mapping approach will make very hard for us to upgrade
> to the right way in future.
What kind of schema would you prefer to put groups into LDAP in a
compatible way?
Volker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/
Hi, Guenther!
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 12:17:21AM +0100, Guenther Deschner wrote:
> no. but SuSE ships a diff for 2_2 for quite some time now with another
> smb.conf option that helps users not to delete their posix-account by
> coincidence.
Why don't you use the make_a_mod function?
Volker
pgp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Here's my first attempt at putting the group mapping into ldap. It
should apply to HEAD.
Comments? Especially the schema might be discussed, this is my very
first attempt at LDAP schema design.
Volker
P.S.: smbgroupedit *really* needs to be rew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
While looking at HEAD / ldapsam_delete_sam_account a bit closer I
found that we completely delete the user. Would it not be better just
to remove the samba-specific attributes and let the 'delete user
script' do the rest? Hmm. srv_samr_nt.c works
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:37:26PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Just remember that doing this doesn't actually gain you anything - the
> users can still write garbage into the file, or make them zero length.
And, remember how Word saves files: New file, delete old, rename new to old.
Lately I
On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 05:04:52PM +0100, Jean-Baptiste Marchand wrote:
> Sorry for being pedantic about that ;-)
No, that's perfect. I really wondered what the 'get/setsystemaccount' functions
do. That should be clear now.
Thanks a lot!
Volker
msg05935/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Just a short reminder: The call for papers for SambaXP 2003 has a
deadline in seven days, on February 14.
I would like to ask all of you to submit your proposal to
http://sambaxp.org/call_for_papers/paper_registration.html
if you have not done
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 10:21:15AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> I guess I should have defined CONFIG_RWSEM_GENERIC_SPINLOCK when compiling my
> kernel since I also configured Samba with "--with-spinlocks":
Ok, this might explain it. Spinlocks are definitely a less tested part of the
code. I h
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
Probably this is more of a debian than a Samba problem. To compile
Samba 2_2 CVS of today with acl support und Debian 3.0, I not only had
to apt-get acl-dev but also attr-dev. For me it was not possible to
compile acl-aware programs with -lacl due
Hi!
Trivial patch, but for me quite useful. It was a surprise to see that
simply saying 'domain logons = yes' (nothing in domain master) gives
us ROLE_DOMAIN_PDC...
Volker
Index: samba/source/utils/testparm.c
===
RCS file: /space/vl
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 10:17:34AM +0100, Ralf G. R. Bergs wrote:
> Ok, now /var/run/samba is an ext3 filesystem -- and the problem is back
> again. :-(
Thanks nevertheless. As one resort, could you try
use mmap = no
Volker
msg05756/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi!
To give the SambaXP an additional value I would like to invite all
Samba developers to stay a day or two longer. I can provide a room for
about 15-20 people (It's about 80 square meters, so 20 stretches it a
bit...) with network connectivity and a
On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 07:50:27AM -0600, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> > server role = share|server|member|PDC|BDC|ADS
> >
> > or something like that.
>
> And i'm still not convinced that it adds any value. I just adds one more
> way to configure things (functionality we can already do) and c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> server role = share|server|member|PDC|BDC|ADS
So what would 'server role = share' be?
Volker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Key-ID D32186CF, Fingerprint available: phone +49 551 370
iD8DBQE+NkoROmSXH9M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi, all!
we would like to invite you to the 2nd samba eXPerience! Again one and a
half day of talks, breaks and party will tell you almost everything about
SAMBA in development and usage. We would appreciate to see you again in
Göttingen!
samba eXPer
On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:00:30AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have created my users, printers, and I have also created and made it
> possible for them to have a folder with the users name on it that they can
> access. My problem lies where every time a new user logs on with his name and
On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 07:48:30PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Is this bug being entirely handled by Sun? Or will there be
> > a samba update as part of the pending fix?
>
> It's a Solaris kernel bug so a Samba update isn't needed.
For which the working patch is currently in testing-mo
Hi, John!
> Yep! It is! Using a Policy File! Create it using the MS Windows NT Group
> Policy Editor. Put it (the NTConfig.POL) file in the root of your NETLOGON
> share. It gets loaded by the client automatically at domain logon time.
>
> Oh: PS: You need to create a policy editor template that
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 12:45:35PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> You should be able to turn down just the passdb section in smb.conf if
> you like. What other level 10 debugs do you need, that this is
> cluttering?
I'm just a bit lazy. I simply say 'smbcontrol debug 10' and look at the
log f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi (metze)!
In HEAD and 3_0 log files I find that the debug messages from
pdb_get_set are a bit annoying. I would like to put them at debug
level 11.
Would that be ok with you?
Volker
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
On Thu, Dec 12, 2002 at 10:57:18PM +1100, Luke Howard wrote:
> Well, we're not doing it to get around the GPL per se; we just want
> to use use SMB as one of many transports for RPC. As it happens, most
> of the requests serviced by our RPC server come in over TCP/IP (that's
> ncacn_ip_tcp for the
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 07:36:54PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can you send me the details on how to reproduce please ?
Install a DOS client and do an xcopy /S from a samba share to a local disk.
SMBsearch sends garbage in the attrib field on the findnext, or if
status_len!=0.
Volker
msg
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 01:45:12PM +0100, Simo Sorce wrote:
> I also have a bug report about problems with xcopy and 2.2.7
> I think we should really check if it is something we break.
All those who have that problem, could you please check the
following patch?
diff -u -r1.240.2.121 reply.c
--- s
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 05:51:07PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 10:26:46AM +0100, Alen Kovac wrote:
> > So I would really need some pointers where to implement this check?
>
> You need to store a record in a tdb somewhere that the user has
> logged on so that another s
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 10:14:20AM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:12:24PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> > Isn't that the problem - can you run pwdump on a Native Mode DC?
>
> No idea. Will try :-)
Ok, works :-)
Volker
msg04433/pgp0.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 08:12:24PM +1100, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Isn't that the problem - can you run pwdump on a Native Mode DC?
No idea. Will try :-)
Volker
msg04432/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 03:41:47PM +0100, Guenther Deschner wrote:
> is it true, that a win2k dc will insist on setting up a secure channel
> before ever transmitting password-hashes (with net rpc vampire)?
Obviously yes. I had to notice that lately. That's where the latest patches
from tridge ar
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 02:17:22PM +0100, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> here're patches for pdb_mysql and pdb_xml witch adds the group wrapper
> functions.
That reminds me... I have hear rumours of somebody working on groups in
LDAP :-)
Volker
msg04315/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP
On Wed, Nov 06, 2002 at 05:18:55AM +1030, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> Hmmm, so what backend do you need to be using to preserve the RIDs?
A 'rich' one, ie currently tdb or ldap, probably mysql as well.
Volker
msg04287/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:36:44AM -0800, Tim Potter wrote:
> If you can get net rpc vampire to spit out a smbpasswd file then
> that could be used with a Samba 2.2 environment.
For that pwdump is easier. The problem is 2.2 will kill your RID's.
That's the hole point of vampire in 3.0
Volker
m
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 04:58:36PM +0100, Guillaume LACHENAL wrote:
> as 3.0 is still in alpha state, do you think is there a way
> to use 'net rpc vampire' from 3.0 on samba 2.2.6 ?
No, not possible. That's really a 3.0 only feature.
Volker
msg04276/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 03:08:42PM +0100, Guillaume LACHENAL wrote:
> does the vampire code allow a migration of computer accounts ?
Yes, that is exactly the idea. To use it, make sure that all your scripts like
add machine script
add user script
add group script
etc are all set correct and work
Hi!
This fixes some bugs I found when playing with NT4 usrmgr.exe.
Volker
diff -ur samba/cvs/head/samba/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c
head/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c
--- samba/cvs/head/samba/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c Sat Oct 12 11:30:54 2002
+++ head/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c Sat O
Hi!
This patch puts a RID allocator into the passdb backend. The outside interface
are two calls.
pdb_max_used_rid is for net rpc vampire to set the maximum RID that the PDC
gave us.
pdb_allocate_rid_for_gid allocates a new RID for the given unix group id. The
passdb backend must allocate RIDs f
On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 02:37:30PM +0200, Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
> here's the NOT READY version of my ldap connection chaching patch
What exactly is not ready yet?
Volker
msg03735/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Oct 14, 2002 at 10:09:36AM +0200, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
> so I propose to map the users to the normal domain SID (S-1-5-21-x-y-z)
> and create their accounts with the ACCOUNT_DISABLED flag.
I hesitated to do that, but I also like this idea. I already implemented it for
groups, s
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 07:17:10PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> I've been thinking about the problem of allocating RIDs in LDAP.
Look at google for 'ldap atomic increment'. The second article gives some hints
on how an atomic increment might be implemented in LDAP. I have not programmed
LDAP be
Andrew,
On Sat, Oct 12, 2002 at 09:25:22AM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> You either need to keep the 'unixsam' in your 'passdb backends' line in
> your smb.conf, or add a 'guest' account to ldap, with a real unix UID
> (possibly the same as nobody, should be the same as 'guest account') and
> wi
On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 02:17:30PM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote:
> Right, a distributed file system should support distributed locking, and
> the rate of logons should not be that high that it stretches the ability
> of the DFS to lock and unlock the file.
The point is not to make that work, thi
On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 07:29:44AM -0400, John E. Malmberg wrote:
> So it all comes down to what the underlying platform supports for shared
> simultaneous disk access.
Even that will not help. Load Balancing SMB will not work due to the locking
stuff across connections. If you could get tdb's w
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 05:35:35PM -0400, Kevin Stefanik wrote:
> from log.nmbd:
> process_node_status_request: status request for name U_MTPPI<1c> from IP
> 192.168.92.56 on subnet UNICAST_SUBNET.
I had the same problem, and patched nmbd a bit. I'm not sure it's
the right fix, but here it is. W
On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 10:02:06AM -0500, Gerald Carter wrote:
> be raised. There may be no bugs, but we need more people using :-)
>
> I'll start up a server here later today
BTW, all my tests for net rpc vampire were done with tdbsam. There seems to be
an issue if you look at a user with
Hi!
Recently I have done some work on the passdb interface in order to get
it work with 'net rpc vampire'. The main problem with both of them
playing together is the question of RIDs. When doing the 'net rpc
vampire', the PDC dictates our RIDs, and the old 2.2 style algorithmic
uid->RID translati
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 05:29:32PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> We actually have all this already. Jelmer has an XML passdb backend,
> and pdbedit -i and -e do the rest.
So samba finally becomes buzzword-compliant :-)
We should then better not have XML in the examples subdirectory.
Volker
On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 09:14:39PM +0200, Jean Francois Micouleau wrote:
> and tdbsam should be the default passdb backend in 3.0. We should remove
> the smbpasswd file and provide a migration script.
Oh, this is radical. But it would make a *LOT* of stuff easier. Not sure if I
really like that.
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 07:44:36AM +1000, Tim Potter wrote:
> It is the wrong place to do it. If some data should only be accessible
> by root then it should live in secrets.tdb otherwise it should go
> somewhere else.
I know. This is just experimental code playing with the thought how far you c
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 03:20:15PM +0100, Gareth Davies wrote:
> wbinfo -N NetBIOSname works ok and resolves, wbinfo -I IP works on and
> resolves, wbinfo -t tells me my secret is ok but as soon as I go for -u
> or -g it says "Error looking up domain users/group".
Maybe you might want to try to g
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 10:54:40PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> Despite all the fuss, the changes there really are not that
> big, just fundamental ;-)
vlendec@delphin:~/head/source> find -name \*.c | xargs grep pdb\_ | wc -l
1596
Questions?
Volker
msg03194/pgp0.pgp
Description: P
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 02:21:07PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> srv_samr_nt.c assumes algorithmic mapping for creation of new
> users. In lines 3891 and 3956 it calls pdb_gid_to_group_rid to create
^
Oops, sorry, this should read 'groups' obviously.
Volker
msg03189/pgp0.pgp
Desc
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 06:53:00AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> The claim is unix group for local file access on session setup.
Ah, ok. Do you have a contact if there are more questions?
Volker
msg03167/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 10:32:33PM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Apparently we ignore non-primary groups (which, given recent changes
> I can certainly beleive), but I've not had a chance to chase it
> up.
Where do we ignore them? In the samlogon reply? I thought I had tested this
case at le
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 01:44:12PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Unfortunately the group mapping information is stored in an extra
> simple database/file group_mapping.tdb.
>
> Is it possible and intended to put this information in a LDAP Server, too,
> so you have only database to maintain ?
On Thu, Sep 12, 2002 at 09:28:36AM +0200, Andreas Moroder wrote:
> our firewall tells me that one of my samba machines sends out SYN packets to a
> external network.
Which port does it send them to?
Volker
msg03047/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 01:02:17PM -0400, David Collier-Brown wrote:
> It doesn't affect the performance of Samba on
> Solaris in general, and oddly enough it doesn't
> seem to hit MS Access...
Sorry, David, but that description is not completely correct. The Solaris fcntl
scal
Hi, Dave!
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:36:06AM -0400, David Collier-Brown wrote:
> I may need to drag you into the detailed discussion
> to help expose what exactly is needed by Samba,
> so we can see why our algorithm doesn't provide it...
Tridge has written a little test progra
On Wed, Jul 17, 2002 at 03:34:15PM +0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> smb_retry: signal failed, error=-3
This is a message generated by smbfs.
Volker
msg02057/pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, Jul 10, 2002 at 05:06:27PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
>
> Date: Wed Jul 10 17:06:27 2002
> Author: jra
>
> Update of /data/cvs/samba/source/lib
> In directory va:/tmp/cvs-serv20748/lib
>
> Modified Files:
> util.c
> Log Message:
> *Experimental* new large-scaling printer
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:51:19AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> This is the first report I've seen of failed memory allocation,
> so my bet is that there is a hardware problem What is the
> load on the machine at this time? I mean, if one malloc fails,
> you would expect to see m
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 08:43:36AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> On 28 Jun 2002, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > I may be wrong but I remember a fix in 2.2.5, I think jeremy or jerry
> > may tell you more however.
>
> Not for tdb corruption.
Thanks. I recently got another error message from t
On Fri, Jun 28, 2002 at 11:08:00AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> - From time to time at a customer's site the sessionid.tdb seems to be
> corrupt. Using tdbtool, dump says it's empty,
> insert/store/fetch/whatever fail. What can I do to diagnose this?
Sorry for my own reply: I have a corrupt
On Tue, Jun 11, 2002 at 04:00:08PM +0100, Paul Reilly wrote:
> I've been reading about setting up Samba as a PDC with LDAP storage.
> However if I am to do this it needs to co-exist with the exisitng windows
> NT domain using windows NT PDC's. Everything I've read so far says you
> can't have a Sa
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 08:56:43AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
> Volker is right on this one I think. We do need to prevent
> the removal of root and some other systems accounts for 2.2.5,
> but the parameter is going to stay in.
I'd vote for a very simple test for 'root'. Nothing else.
On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 03:40:37PM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Just make it a stub function and document it.
I don't think this is a good idea. 2.2.5 should be the *LAST* 2.2 series.
Somebody will definitely complain if we remove it. Just call it dead code and
don't care for it anymore.
Volker
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:55:20PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 04:48:27PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > And are you saying that Win2k will never 'idle' a client connection? I'm
> > sure I've seen smbfs being 'idled' by NT before...
>
> I don't think it ever
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 05:22:06PM +0200, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> Not sure. Optionitis striking again. But I think that the dynamic user adding
> upon session setup is a bad hack anyway.
Or another idea: Add a %-Macro to tell the script which subsystem did it?
Volker
msg00842/pgp000
On Fri, May 17, 2002 at 11:22:49PM +1000, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> 'delete user script' runs when a user attempts to log in, but the PDC
> says that they don't exist. Firstly: does this really happen? If a
Yes, obviously. I once was called to a machine that went completely wild. It
would not r
On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 02:09:58PM -0500, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> IIRC, NT will go into the Conflict state if it gets a "NAME RELEASE
> REQUEST DEMAND". See my docs: http://www.ubiqx.org/cifs/NetBIOS.html
> Look for the string "NAME RELEASE REQUEST DEMAND". It is really easy to
> code thi
82 matches
Mail list logo
