On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 08:08:38AM +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:39:28AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > It come me to mind that recentely we changed the code to check the
> > packet is really an smb packet by checking the header field for the SMB.
> > string, so I supp
On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:39:28AM +0200, Simo Sorce wrote:
> It come me to mind that recentely we changed the code to check the
> packet is really an smb packet by checking the header field for the SMB.
> string, so I suppose samba will not support RAW calls anymore too.
Nope - not true. Raw cal
It come me to mind that recentely we changed the code to check the
packet is really an smb packet by checking the header field for the SMB.
string, so I suppose samba will not support RAW calls anymore too.
Simo.
On Tue, 2002-09-10 at 06:49, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
> Just a quick san
Just a quick sanity check, if any of you have the time. In my book I'm
trying to describe the MaxBufferSize and MaxRawSize fields in the NegProt
response. I neither want or need to go into great depth, but I do need to
be as close to correct in my descriptions as SMB allows. If anyone ha
