Andrew Gray
1999-Feb-08 11:15 UTC
Keeping smb password syncronise between multiple Samba servers
[ My apologies if this is an FAQ - couldn't see it in the usual places... ]
We have multiple Samba servers and would like to be able to keep user
passwords in syncronisation between them..
It occurs to me that other Samba sites must have come across this issue,
I'd like to know what solutions others have used ?
1. Use PDC functionality;
Either a native NT server or Samba
2. Non standard reference source;
E.g move smbpasswd file onto a shared filesystem ( insecure )
created a new NIS map, etc, etc...
3. Custom smbpasswd program
( Yuk ! - maintainance problems, etc )
I'd welcome any comments, suggestions, prior experience.
Probably best to E-mail me direct, I'll summarise to list if there's
sufficient interest.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: samba@samba.org [SMTP:samba@samba.org]
> Sent: 07 February 1999 16:54
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: SAMBA digest 1974
>
> SAMBA Digest 1974
>
> For information on unsubscribing see http://samba.org/listproc/
> Topics covered in this issue include:
>
> 1) Samba Solution ? [was] Beware: Samba is a hoax
> by alex@avantel.com
> 2) Re: Beware: Samba is a hoax
> by "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@fgp.priv.at>
> 3) AW: AW: Beware: Samba is a hoax
> by "Rudolf Kollien" <Rudolf.Kollien@kollien.de>
> 4) runaway smbd in samba-2.0.1
> by Todd Pfaff <pfaff@edge.cis.McMaster.CA>
> 5) AW: Samba Solution ? [was] Beware: Samba is a hoax
> by "Rudolf Kollien" <Rudolf.Kollien@kollien.de>
> 6) Undelete from samba-share...
> by cly@sunshine.bke.hu
> 7) Re: v2.0.1 LDAP and SSL broken - won't build
> by Matt Chapman <m.chapman@student.unsw.edu.au>
> 8) Re: runaway smbd in samba-2.0.1
> by Jeremy Allison <jeremy@netcom.com>
> 9) configure problem with samba-2.0.1
> by Carey Nairn <cpn@dpac.tas.gov.au>
> 10) smb.conf man page and solaris man
> by Todd Pfaff <pfaff@edge.cis.McMaster.CA>
> 11) 2.0.1 recall - 2.0.2 released.
> by Jeremy Allison <jeremy@netcom.com>
> 12) Kerberos authentication of non-Unix usercodes
> by "O'Connor, John" <J.M.OConnor@massey.ac.nz>
> 13) Congratulations! (Re: 2.0.1 recall - 2.0.2 released.)
> by servis@purdue.edu
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 12:07:10 -0500
> From: alex@avantel.com
> To: "Samba" <samba@samba.org>
> Subject: Samba Solution ? [was] Beware: Samba is a hoax
> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19990206120710.007aab90@chelsea>
>
> Let me start by thanking the many people who replied to my cry for help.
> I
> received far fewer flames than expected and the majority of replies were
> helpful and supportive.
>
> I (think?) the problem is fixed but I do not understand what was broke.
> Here's what I found and what I did (I'm hoping someone understands
why
> this
> worked)
>
> Since the listing of shared files on the Samba host (either in a dos box
> or
> with explorer) was causing my W95 client to freeze I decided to see if a
> particular file was causing the problem. After a 'net use x:
> \\sambahost\tmp'
> I switched to x: and instead of asking for 'dir' I used 'dir
*.log' - NO
> FREEZE! And I got a listing of the 4 log files in the \tmp directory
>
> I kept this up until I found one single file that would cause my system to
> freeze (repeatable). So I removed that file from the \tmp directory and
> tried again. This time, no freeze. Everything worked as it was supposed
> to.
>
> So my question - is there any reason that a particular file should cause a
> failure such as the one I experienced. Here's the filename listing -
> there's nothing unusual about the file and it causes my system to
freeze
> regardless of what's in the file (I deleted it initially and recreated
it
> -
> same size, content unknown). If I re-insert this file into the \tmp
> directory I get my freezes back.
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root alex 31 Feb 6 10:51 000b208e.lpq
>
> (I changed it from the original lpq.000b208e to see if that made any
> difference but it did not.)
>
> Is this just a fluke or is there a reason that this could be the cause?
>
> I'm baffled.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 17:54:34 +0100
> From: "Florian G. Pflug" <fgp@fgp.priv.at>
> To: alex@avantel.com, Multiple recipients of list <samba@samba.org>
> Subject: Re: Beware: Samba is a hoax
> Message-ID: <19990206175434.A12709@fgp.priv.at>
>
> > I can only conclude that Samba is an elaborate hoax and here's
why.
> Well.. why do you use it them... just switch to NT and spend your time
> rebooting your machine after nearly every action "for the setting to
take
> effect" :-)
>
> > 1) Setup is more complex than Sendmail (it set the standard for
> complexity)
> Simply not true!... I asume you have NEVER even read an average
> sendmail.cf
> file
>
> > 2) Even the simplest smb.conf causes trouble
> Well .. I sugest reading the man-pages and using you brain
>
> > 3) You can pass ALL the tests in the DIAGNOSIS procedure, AND
> > Samba will still not let you SHARE FILES or SHARE PRINTERS between
> Windows
> > and Unix
> > but you WILL be able to BROWSE YOUR SHARES (Just pretend it might be
> useful)
> Well.. most people have samba up and running without ever looking at
> DIAGNOSIS.txt....
>
> [Snip]
>
> Well.. Next time, just use a WORKING win95-client (hard to get.. i know)
> Or... even simplier:
> Just switch to nt... no need for using tcp/ip, just use netbeui (very
> simple
> to configure). Netbeui doesn't support routing, but who needs more than
> one
> subnet? Should be no problem for you to pay $1000 for 5 users.....
>
> Next time, before you mail flames about freeware, get yourselft a
> linux-machine with gcc, the program sources and
> START MAKING IT BETTER
>
>
> Greetings from Florian Pflug
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:29:11 +0100
> From: "Rudolf Kollien" <Rudolf.Kollien@kollien.de>
> To: "Samba" <samba@samba.org>, <alex@avantel.com>
> Subject: AW: AW: Beware: Samba is a hoax
> Message-ID: <000801be51f6$35abd190$0c7e830a@pc101.kollien.de>
>
> Networking itself is very simple but the several components of the
> networking soft and hardware are very complex because there is no standard
> in setup of the the different components.
>
> As it seems that you can see your samba shares and (partialy) access them
> your samba setup seems to be correct. So not the samba setup should be the
> cause of your problems. It looks like there is a problem accessing the
> network itself.
>
> Try some network tests:
>
> 1) ping your linux box from win95 using the ip adress of the linux box. On
> a
> clean network you should see a constant reply time (should be under or not
> higher than a ms, depending on the ping tools measurement it may say zero
> ms). I assume your win client and the linux box are on the same network
> segment. If there is a inconsistancy in the ping reply time there is a
> malfunction in some of the network components (maybe soft or hardware,
> either on the server or client side).
>
> 2) try the ping from the linux box to your win client. The result should
> be
> also constant ping reply time.
>
> 4) Next connect to your linux box via telnet (included in win95 or any
> other
> terminal emulation able to use tcp/ip). Login as a user (may be root is
> not
> allowed to do a remote connect. Depends on your linux setup). No produce a
> long output. Suitable is "du /" or "find / -print". If
your win client
> don't
> seizure it looks good for your network equipment.
>
> 5) Test the route between the linux box and your win client using
> traceroute. You will find out if there is a router/gateway between the two
> systems which will cause a problem/timeout. If configuring routes for a
> unix
> system (linux or any other) you should always give a name to the
> router/gateway you are using. Means if you setup e.g.: "route add
default
> 10.10.10.1" i recommend that you at least create a /etc/hosts file
> containing "10.10.10.1 xyz". The routing always tries to
resolve the
> name
> of a router/gateway. List your routes on the linux box with "netstat
-r".
> The listing should be displayed quickly. If you have to wait a time there
> is
> a address resolving problem. Look if you see a dummy device in the routes.
> On some linux distributions it is setup by default. It is only used for
> ppp
> login. Consult your linux distribution and remove it from the startup.
>
> 5) If test 1 to 5 are passed with good results you may raise your
> debuglevel
> in the smb.conf (debuglevel=9 should be enough). Look at the log of the
> samba server after connecting from the win client if there is any error
> message. The log is usually under "/var/log/log.smb". Even if
some
> messages
> maybe "cryptic" you will easily identify an error message.
>
> Again: as you were able to connect to samba you did the right config. If
> it
> would be a problem of samba you were not able to connect to a resource.
> Errors in the config result allways in denied accesses. Trust me: there is
> a
> connection problem! Your samba config is ok. A soft/hardware problem may
> also be on the linux side. Try connecting form other win clients (if you
> didn't yet). If this causes the same errors look at your linux
> configuration. A "netstat -i" lists you collisions or other
errors on the
> net. Perhaps you have a malfunctioning nic in the server. If you can use
> another nic do so. Verify that the nic in the server works properly. Boot
> with a dos disk and test the nic with the diagnostic program supplied by
> the
> manufactor. Last week i got a SMC nic which was only able to negotiate at
> 100mbit with a switch over a 3 meter cable. Over a 5 meter cable there
> were
> no sync. With the 3 meter i had no problems with linux. As i knew the 5
> meter cable was ok i tested the nic with the dos diagnostic of SMC. It
> said
> the nic was COMLETELY malfunction (wrong base address and used interrupt,
> defect interface connector). Changing the nic the 3 and the 5 meter cable
> both works fine, the dos diagnostic says all is ok. Linux is very fault
> tolerant to the hardware (sometimes to tolerant).
>
>
> System-Consulting Kollien
> Rudolf Kollien
>
> Email: kollien@kollien.de
> Our home on the net: http://www.kollien.de
> **************************************************************************
> *
> Never trust a operating system you have no sources for
> **************************************************************************
> *
> Buying an operating system without source is like buying
> a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
> **************************************************************************
> *
> This line is for the US NSA only: sex bomp terror attack drugs shit fbi
> cia
>
> > -----Urspr$B!)(Jgliche Nachricht-----(J
> > Von: alex@avantel.com [mailto:alex@avantel.com]
> > Gesendet am: Freitag, 5. Februar 1999 22:15
> > An: Rudolf.Kollien@kollien.de
> > Betreff: Re: AW: Beware: Samba is a hoax
> >
> > It's nice that it worked for you, but I hope you can understand my
> > frustration that my very simple configuration will not work. I have
> read
> > ALL the documentation that came with each of the three versions of
Samba
> > that I have tried plus the book published by the Samba team so
don't
> tell
> > me to RTFM!
> >
> > As for testing the clients - I followed the diagnostics procedure
> provided
> > with the Samba package - it all passed. But I can't access the
shared
> > services. And do you really think that a cable would fail only when I
> > access a Samba server - this LAN has been working fine.
> >
> > Having said all that, I agree about the MS documentation - it's
> hopeless.
> > And that's why I'm trying to set up Linux as a file and print
server.
> But
> > if I can't get Linux/Samba to do simple file & print sharing
then
> > I'll have
> > to find something that can. Hopefully I'll find the problem or
find
> > someone else who can.
> >
> > At 02:50 PM 2/5/1999 -0500, you wrote:
> > >Try to test your Win clients to work properly.
> > >I know there are some problems when you join the samba domain with
> WinNT
> > >workstation 4.0 SP4. But all Win95/98/3.11 should connect to the
samba
> > >server successfully. As i learned in the past, the most problems
> > are on the
> > >client side NOT on the server side. Maybe you've got a
malfunctioning
> > >network cable (was a browsing problem of one of the guys in this
> mailing
> > >list).
> > >
> > >
> > >> 1) Setup is more complex than Sendmail (it set the standard
for
> > >complexity)
> > >On my first start with samba (2 years ago) i spent only 30 min.
> > to configure
> > >it properly. Read the docs!!!! Contrary to the WinNT docs you will
find
> > >usefull and understandable information (try to find infos on
> > subnet browsing
> > >in the NT server docs and understand it!). I used one of the
> > exampe configs
> > >of samba and adjusted only the parameters for my environment.
> > Till today i
> > >don't understand the sendmail configuration (i use allways the
> > defaults with
> > >minor changes).
> > >
> > >> Samba will still not let you SHARE FILES or SHARE PRINTERS
> > between Windows
> > >and Unix
> > >We use samba on linux with 100 users sharing more than 200 shares
and
> 60
> > >printers (accessable from different unix machines and all
> > windows clients,
> > >even the local printers on the win clients are accessable). All
> > shares can
> > >be accessed by remote clients over the wan too. There are many
> > multiuser win
> > >apps using the samba shares with NO trouble. We installed 3
> > samba servers.
> > >One is the domain master, serving the complete authentification
> > of the whole
> > >net (across subnets) and providing the wins database. All
> > clients joins the
> > >domain of this domain master. All clients are able for roaming
> > (the profiles
> > >are stored on the domain master).
> > >
> > >Don't flame me, but samba is the most relieable (based on the
OS it
> runs
> > >on), fastest win server you can find on this planet. And there are
not
> > >hidden "features" like security holes or "blue
screens". I wish
> > to thank all
> > >the developers/programmers/hackers of samba for their great job.
> > >
> > >WinNT server: it only hurts if you survive...........
> > >
> > >System-Consulting Kollien
> > >Rudolf Kollien
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:44:14 -0500 (EST)
> From: Todd Pfaff <pfaff@edge.cis.McMaster.CA>
> To: samba@samba.org, samba-technical@samba.org
> Subject: runaway smbd in samba-2.0.1
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990206133244.8466A-100000@edge>
>
> i just upgraded a solaris 2.5 system from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1 and i'm
getting a
> runaway smbd process looping on:
>
> waitid(P_PID, 9132, 0xEFFFD240, WEXITED|WTRAPPED) Err#10 ECHILD
>
> --
> Todd Pfaff \ Email: pfaff@mcmaster.ca
> Computing and Information Services \ Voice: (905) 525-9140 x22920
> ABB 132 \ FAX: (905) 528-3773
> McMaster University \
> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M1 \
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 22:06:09 +0100
> From: "Rudolf Kollien" <Rudolf.Kollien@kollien.de>
> To: "Samba" <samba@samba.org>, <alex@avantel.com>
> Subject: AW: Samba Solution ? [was] Beware: Samba is a hoax
> Message-ID: <000001be5214$85226540$0c7e830a@pc101.kollien.de>
>
> I think it's important for the samba developers/programmers/hackers to
see
> the samba log created while accessing this file. Be so kind and clear your
> samba log file, insert a "debuglevel=12" in the smb.conf, restart
the
> syslogd with a kill -1, create the file which caused the problem, start
> you
> win client and access the file. Save the log, switch your debuglevel back
> to
> 1 or 2, restart syslogd and send the file to the group.
>
>
> System-Consulting Kollien
> Rudolf Kollien
>
> Email: kollien@kollien.de
> Our home on the net: http://www.kollien.de
> **************************************************************************
> *
> Never trust a operating system you have no sources for
> **************************************************************************
> *
> Buying an operating system without source is like buying
> a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.
> **************************************************************************
> *
> This line is for the US NSA only: sex bomp terror attack drugs shit fbi
> cia
>
> > -----Urspr$B!)(Jgliche Nachricht-----(J
> > Von: alex@avantel.com [mailto:alex@avantel.com]
> > Gesendet am: Samstag, 6. Februar 1999 18:18
> > An: Multiple recipients of list
> > Betreff: Samba Solution ? [was] Beware: Samba is a hoax
> >
> > Let me start by thanking the many people who replied to my cry
> > for help. I
> > received far fewer flames than expected and the majority of replies
were
> > helpful and supportive.
> >
> > I (think?) the problem is fixed but I do not understand what was
broke.
> > Here's what I found and what I did (I'm hoping someone
> > understands why this
> > worked)
> >
> > Since the listing of shared files on the Samba host (either in a
> > dos box or
> > with explorer) was causing my W95 client to freeze I decided to see if
a
> > particular file was causing the problem. After a 'net use x:
> > \\sambahost\tmp'
> > I switched to x: and instead of asking for 'dir' I used
'dir *.log' - NO
> > FREEZE! And I got a listing of the 4 log files in the \tmp directory
> >
> > I kept this up until I found one single file that would cause my
system
> to
> > freeze (repeatable). So I removed that file from the \tmp directory
and
> > tried again. This time, no freeze. Everything worked as it was
> > supposed to.
> >
> > So my question - is there any reason that a particular file should
cause
> a
> > failure such as the one I experienced. Here's the filename
listing -
> > there's nothing unusual about the file and it causes my system to
freeze
> > regardless of what's in the file (I deleted it initially and
> > recreated it -
> > same size, content unknown). If I re-insert this file into the \tmp
> > directory I get my freezes back.
> >
> > -rw-r--r-- 1 root alex 31 Feb 6 10:51 000b208e.lpq
> >
> > (I changed it from the original lpq.000b208e to see if that made any
> > difference but it did not.)
> >
> > Is this just a fluke or is there a reason that this could be the
cause?
> >
> > I'm baffled.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 22:36:51 -0100
> From: cly@sunshine.bke.hu
> To: samba@samba.org
> Subject: Undelete from samba-share...
> Message-ID: <36BCD213.F6B65CA5@sunshine.bke.hu>
>
> Hi!
> There are some programs under linux, which are trying to provide some
> undelete support on ext2 filesystem. The common problem, that they
> replace only the rm command.
> Is it possible to get samba to use the rm command instead of unlink
> system call?
> Is it possible to replace the system unlink?
> Cly
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 06 Feb 1999 21:30:14 +0000
> From: Matt Chapman <m.chapman@student.unsw.edu.au>
> To: graham@vwv.com
> Subject: Re: v2.0.1 LDAP and SSL broken - won't build
> Message-ID: <36BCB466.37122CA6@student.unsw.edu.au>
>
> Graham Leggett wrote:
>
> > I have been trying to build a v2.0.1 Samba build with both LDAP and
SSL
> > support.
>
> Yes, Samba 2.0.1 is known to be broken with regard to both LDAP and
> SSL support.
>
> Both of these are still experimental. SSL support will probably be
> fixed in a later version of 2.0 but it is unlikely LDAP support will
> reach maturity in this branch (only in the Samba 2.1-prealpha branch,
> available via CVS).
>
> Matt
>
>
> --
> Matt Chapman
> m.chapman@student.unsw.edu.au
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 13:46:05 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jeremy Allison <jeremy@netcom.com>
> To: samba@samba.org
> Cc: pfaff@edge.cis.McMaster.CA
> Subject: Re: runaway smbd in samba-2.0.1
> Message-ID: <199902062146.NAA00169@netcom13.netcom.com>
>
> Todd Pfaff wrote :
>
> > i just upgraded a solaris 2.5 system from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1 and i'm
getting
> a
> > runaway smbd process looping on:
> >
> > waitid(P_PID, 9132, 0xEFFFD240, WEXITED|WTRAPPED) Err#10 ECHILD
>
> Can you give more information to samba-bugs please.
>
> There were some changes in the waitpid handling in
> several places to fix Samba 2 on HPUX9.x where slow
> system calls like waitpid weren't being restarted
> after a EINTR.
>
> A Debug level 10 showing where the looping is happening
> would help.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeremy Allison,
> Samba Team.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 09:44:11 +1100 (EST)
> From: Carey Nairn <cpn@dpac.tas.gov.au>
> To: samba@samba.org
> Subject: configure problem with samba-2.0.1
> Message-ID:
> <Pine.BSF.3.96.990207093654.20739C-100000@whitestar.cpn.org.au>
>
> Hi samba gurus,
>
> I am having problems running configure on solaris-2.6 with gcc-2.7.2.1
> My hardware is a Sun Ultra 10.
> I get the following error:
>
> ..
> checking configure summary
> ERROR: No locking available. Running Samba would be unsafe
> configure: error: summary failure. Aborting config
>
> samba-2.0.0 would complete the configure but failed to compile.
>
> any thoughts?
>
> cheers,
> Carey Nairn
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 18:17:45 -0500 (EST)
> From: Todd Pfaff <pfaff@edge.cis.McMaster.CA>
> To: samba@samba.org, samba-technical@samba.org
> Subject: smb.conf man page and solaris man
> Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.990206175716.10503E-100000@edge>
>
> has anyone else noticed this minor annoyance with solaris 2.5 man and the
> smb.conf man page?
>
> the smb.conf man page looks like this:
>
> TH SMB.CONF 5 "06 Feb 1999" "smb.conf 2.0.1"
> PP
> SH "NAME"
> smb\&.conf \- The configuration file for the Samba suite
>
> i don't know much about nroff but i assume that the \& is there to
escape
> the . before conf. the \& seems to confuse catman in solaris 2.5 such
> that it doesn't add smb.conf to the whatis file and man doesn't
find the
> smb.conf page. nroff process the page fine however, with or without the
> \&.
>
> the simple fix is to edit the smb.conf.5 page and remove the \& from
the
> title line. this works for me, ymmv.
>
> --
> Todd Pfaff \ Email: pfaff@mcmaster.ca
> Computing and Information Services \ Voice: (905) 525-9140 x22920
> ABB 132 \ FAX: (905) 528-3773
> McMaster University \
> Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8S 4M1 \
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 15:32:56 -0800 (PST)
> From: Jeremy Allison <jeremy@netcom.com>
> To: samba@samba.org
> Cc: jeremy@netcom.com
> Subject: 2.0.1 recall - 2.0.2 released.
> Message-ID: <199902062332.PAA06589@netcom13.netcom.com>
>
> Hi all,
>
> A critical signal handling bug was found in Samba 2.0.1
> within a few hours of release (thank goodness !) and so I've
> recalled it from the site and released 2.0.2 with a fix.
>
> The problem was a missing break statement..... (my fault
> I'm afraid) in the code handling systems with slow system
> calls that aren't restarted (waitpid) - a loop was being
> done to restart the waitpid if it was interrupted by a
> signal, but unfortunately the standard SIGCLD signal
> handler was eating the child return status in the
> signal handler - thus the waitpid was returning -1
> with errno = ECHILD - a condition that wan't being
> tested for and hence caused smbd to go into a tight
> loop doing waitpid calls under certain circumstances.
>
> I'm just sorry that none of the internal tests
> caught this one before release - please accept my
> apologies.
>
> Sorry,
>
> Jeremy Allison,
> Samba TEam.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 17:48:24 +1300
> From: "O'Connor, John" <J.M.OConnor@massey.ac.nz>
> To: "'samba@samba.org'" <samba@samba.org>
> Subject: Kerberos authentication of non-Unix usercodes
> Message-ID:
> <E325DED913AED111B6480000F878317D5E5BBF@its-xchg1.massey.ac.nz>
>
>
> I've compiled Samba with Kerberos5 support but I'm having trouble
gaining
> access with usercodes that don't have a matching Unix entry, i.e.
> usercodes
> that only exist in the Kerberos database.
>
> With usercodes that do have matching Unix and Kerberos entries I see the
> expected behaviour, including logged authentications on the Kerberso KDC.
> Kerberos only usercodes however just seem to black-hole.
>
> Does this ring any bells with anyone?
>
> Log file for successful Unix/Kerberos usercode = 'joconnor' :
> (Samba 1.9.18p10, Digital Unix 4.0d, Win95 client)
> ..
> [000] 00 00 4A 4F 43 4F 4E 4E 4F 52 00 4D 41 53 53 45 ..JOCONN OR.MASSE
> [010] 59 00 57 69 6E 64 6F 77 73 20 34 2E 30 00 57 69 Y.Window s 4.0.Wi
> [020] 6E 64 6F 77 73 20 34 2E 30 00 ndows 4. 0.
> switch message SMBsesssetupX (pid 14113)
> Domain=[MASSEY] NativeOS=[Windows 4.0] NativeLanMan=[Windows 4.0]
> sesssetupX:name=[JOCONNOR]
> lp_file_list_changed()
> file /usr/local/samba/lib/smb.conf -> /usr/local/samba/lib/smb.conf
last
> mod_time: Sun Feb 7 13:22:21 1999
> Registered username joconnor for guest access
> lp_servicenumber: couldn't find joconnor
> adding home directory joconnor at /users/joconnor
> Client requested max send size of 2920
> Chained message
>
> Log of Kerberos only usercode = '99012345' :
> ..
> [000] 00 00 39 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 00 4D 41 53 53 45 ..990123 45.MASSE
> [010] 59 00 57 69 6E 64 6F 77 73 20 34 2E 30 00 57 69 Y.Window s 4.0.Wi
> [020] 6E 64 6F 77 73 20 34 2E 30 00 ndows 4. 0.
> switch message SMBsesssetupX (pid 10834)
> Domain=[MASSEY] NativeOS=[Windows 4.0] NativeLanMan=[Windows 4.0]
> sesssetupX:name=[99012345]
> lp_file_list_changed()
> file /usr/local/samba/lib/smb.conf -> /usr/local/samba/lib/smb.conf
last
> mod_time: Sun Feb 7 13:15:19 1999
> Trying username 99012345
> Trying username 99012345
> Trying username 99012345
> Trying username 99012345
> Registered username nobody for guest access
> Client requested max send size of 2920
> Chained message
> ..
>
> Thanks.
>
> -------------------------
> John O'Connor
> Computing Services
> Massey University
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sun, 7 Feb 1999 10:53:48 -0500 (EST)
> From: servis@purdue.edu
> To: samba@samba.anu.edu.au
> Subject: Congratulations! (Re: 2.0.1 recall - 2.0.2 released.)
> Message-ID: <E109WWv-0004BH-00@ppp-x9-40.ecn.purdue.edu>
>
> My congratulations to the Samba Team for such a FAST response!!!!
>
> Within hours of the first post of a problem on samba@samba.org the
> problem was debugged and fixed with a recall of the bad code and a new
> version made available. This would NEVER happen under a closed
> development system.
>
> Congratulations and keep up the fantastic work!
>
> --
> Brian Servis
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Never criticize anybody until you have walked a mile in their shoes,
> because by that time you will be a mile away and have their shoes."
> - unknown
>
> Mechanical Engineering bservis@usa.net
> Purdue University http://www.ecn.purdue.edu/~servis
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of SAMBA Digest 1974
> ************************
When the world was young, Roberto Mello <mello@internext.com.br> carved some runes like this:> I'm having a problem with wirte permissions in my shares. Some shares of > mine are to be accessed only by certain users so I put them in the valid > users = and write list = and also these shares are read only = no and > write able = yes, but even though THE VALID USERS CAN NOT WRITE to the > share. Why ?? The only way I can make them have permission to write is > putting them as admin users = .This is a function of the underlying unix permissions. My experience is with RedHat (who use the user-private group scheme) so your mileage may vary. For info on this scheme, see the RedHat Installation Guide. Make sure the files/dirs on your shares are not owned by root. Create a group for your users and make it the owner of this tree. Add users to this group. Write list will allow the specified users to write (while everyone can read) but valid users will restrict both read and write access. You may need to use the force user, force group, create mode, etc, to get the behavior you want.> Also, can I set samba to be a Domain Controller ? (like NT)Yes, but only version 2.x Steve