Hi list! Many questions are asked and answered about resolving user accounts. But does winbind resolve computer accounts? To elaborate some: it is perfectly all right to add computer accounts to access groups and use them in ACLs on a share or folder. For instance you would like a startup script to run on a client computer before a user logs on. Or perhaps you would like a server (account) to put/get a file on/from a share. MS SQL Server 2012 supports using UNC paths for both locating database file and backup to. Under certain circumstances the computer account is used for authorization. There have been many, and sometimes lenghty, discussions about the need of uid- and gidnumbers on the list. But how does winbind handle computer accounts? Regards Davor Vusir
On 12/05/15 19:30, Davor Vusir wrote:> Hi list! > > Many questions are asked and answered about resolving user accounts. > But does winbind resolve computer accounts? > > To elaborate some: it is perfectly all right to add computer accounts > to access groups and use them in ACLs on a share or folder. For > instance you would like a startup script to run on a client computer > before a user logs on. Or perhaps you would like a server (account) to > put/get a file on/from a share. MS SQL Server 2012 supports using UNC > paths for both locating database file and backup to. Under certain > circumstances the computer account is used for authorization. > > There have been many, and sometimes lenghty, discussions about the > need of uid- and gidnumbers on the list. But how does winbind handle > computer accounts? > > Regards > Davor Vusir >Never actually had to do it, but I would image that you could give a computer a uidNumber, if you look at the objectclasses for a user, you will find this: objectClass: top objectClass: person objectClass: organizationalPerson objectClass: user A computer is somewhat similar: objectClass: top objectClass: person objectClass: organizationalPerson objectClass: user objectClass: computer To AD a computer is just a user, but just slightly different. Rowland
To the powers the might be, it seems that the "(root) preexec" function does not work when used with "msdfs proxy". Is that just "my" problem, an error or by design? If it is by design, I would be curious to know why. If it is an error, can it be addressed fairly quickly? If it is none of the above, then what information will be needed to help diagnose "my" issue? I don't have the line I use with me for the preexec, but I did attempt the example in he samba man pages i.e.: (root) preexec = echo "hello world!" >> /tmp/mycutelog.txt no worky worky. Thanks in advance! -- Greg Enlow grenlow at hk.mailbox.de ______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. Zu buchen bei Hegel & Koch - http://www.hk-online.de ______________________________________________________________________
On 12/05/15 20:27, Greg Enlow wrote:> To the powers the might be, > > it seems that the "(root) preexec" function does not work when used with "msdfs proxy". Is that just "my" problem, an error or by design? > If it is by design, I would be curious to know why. > If it is an error, can it be addressed fairly quickly? > If it is none of the above, then what information will be needed to help diagnose "my" issue? > > I don't have the line I use with me for the preexec, but I did attempt the example in he samba man pages > i.e.: > (root) preexec = echo "hello world!" >> /tmp/mycutelog.txt > no worky worky. > > Thanks in advance! > > > -- > > Greg Enlow > grenlow at hk.mailbox.de > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. > Zu buchen bei Hegel & Koch - http://www.hk-online.de > ______________________________________________________________________More info, more info Post your smb.conf Rowland