search for: 201448

...t -- port:993 -- socket:0x6000004b1dc0 -- thread:0x60000127b140 36.156 UID STORE 76543 +FLAGS.SILENT (\Deleted) READ Sep 05 11:30:57.733 [kCFStreamSocketSecurityLevelTLSv1_2] -- host:mail.uniparthenope.it -- port:993 -- socket:0x6000004b1dc0 -- thread:0x60000127b140 * 7776 FETCH (UID 76543 MODSEQ (201448)) 36.156 OK Store completed (0.012 + 0.000 + 0.011 secs). WROTE Sep 05 11:30:57.734 [kCFStreamSocketSecurityLevelTLSv1_2] -- host:mail.uniparthenope.it -- port:993 -- socket:0x6000004b1dc0 -- thread:0x60000127b140 37.156 IDLE READ Sep 05 11:30:57.740 [kCFStreamSocketSecurityLevelTLSv1_2] -- host:...

...on/__init__.py", line 1628, in check_dir_acl raise ProvisioningError('%s ACL on GPO directory %s %s does not match expected value %s from GPO object' % (acl_type(direct_db_access), path, fsacl_sddl, acl)) Though according to <https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2016-July/201448.html> this might be a samba-tool issue. Though I don't think it's related to the error as it looks like somehow it's not about permissions or issues on sysvol share level but rather crypto/signature issues. Moreover I tried a bit more GPO debugging as instructed here: <h...

Hello, I think I really need some help on this. Since Samba 4.2.11 upgrade my Windows 10 clients are unable to synchronize group policies. I have asked about this already here <https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2016-April/199226.html>. Now I re-investigate the issue with Windows 10 1607 update and still face the same issue which prevents me from rolling out this configuration in

...in check_dir_acl >      raise ProvisioningError('%s ACL on GPO directory %s %s does not match > expected value %s from GPO object' % (acl_type(direct_db_access), path, > fsacl_sddl, acl)) > > Though according to > <https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba/2016-July/201448.html> this might > be a > samba-tool issue. > > Though I don't think it's related to the error as it looks like somehow > it's not > about permissions or issues on sysvol share level but rather > crypto/signature > issues. > > > >...