search for: authoritativeness

Hi I got some strange issues on my samba4.0.1 install yesterday. It happened a while after updating my xubuntu server 13.04 not 13.10. Everything seems to be working fine except shares. Kerberos authentication seem to function properly, also DNS works fine but shares seem semi-broken. I can't mount any shares on my Windows box, including netlogon, profiles. I have one share that is

Hello, we're using sambas internal DNS server. Is there a way to get rid of these messages in logfiles: /var/log/samba/log.samba: Not authoritative for 'static.ak.facebook.com', forwarding /var/log/samba/log.samba: Not authoritative for 's-static.ak.facebook.com', forwarding /var/log/samba/log.samba: Not authoritative for 's-static.ak.facebook.com', forwarding

On 04/15/2016 04:36 PM, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: > On 4/15/2016 10:08 AM, Johannes Amorosa | Celluloid VFX wrote: >> Hello, >> we're using sambas internal DNS server. >> >> Is there a way to get rid of these messages in logfiles: >> >> /var/log/samba/log.samba: Not authoritative for >> 'static.ak.facebook.com', forwarding >>

On 27/11/15 13:23, James wrote: > On 11/26/2015 11:12 AM, Ole Traupe wrote: >> >>>> Then you re-run your test with only DC2 up and running. >>>> Note DNS have need time to be updated if you are using others DNS >>>> servers between clients and AD DCs. >>> The SOA RR identifies a primary DNS name server for the zone as the >>> best

Would prefer to continue to use my NSD/Unbound installs for most DNS (if not all) services. NSD is the authoritative server for the domain, and Unbound is the cache/resolver that the clients connect to. I'd like to not disturb this setup but I'll need the SRV records so that AD works. If the SRV records are fixed I suppose I could host them using NSD, then Samba wouldn't have to be

On 04/18/2016 07:09 PM, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: > On 4/18/2016 12:52 PM, Johannes Amorosa | Celluloid VFX wrote: >> >> On 04/15/2016 04:36 PM, lingpanda101 at gmail.com wrote: >>> On 4/15/2016 10:08 AM, Johannes Amorosa | Celluloid VFX wrote: >>>> Hello, >>>> we're using sambas internal DNS server. >>>> >>>> Is

Greetings All- I have an odd need for a 'semi-authoritative' DNS server. Let's say I have a zone for 'domain.com' with public DNS servers. However, I wanted to run an internal DNS server for internal things. Public resolution of 'www.domain.com' would yield the public IPs, private resolution of 'www.domain.com' would yield the internal private IPs. Easy enough.

When I setup Samba4 I already had a master and slave bind9 server so I copied the relevant dns information to my master server however I don't know how to make my existing server authoritative for the zone. It will send notifies to the slave and allow ddns updates but the slave shows this error: "slave-server named[1187]: client 1.1.1.1#22792: received notify for zone

On 27/11/15 14:30, James wrote: > On 11/27/2015 9:16 AM, Rowland Penny wrote: >> On 27/11/15 13:23, James wrote: >>> On 11/26/2015 11:12 AM, Ole Traupe wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Then you re-run your test with only DC2 up and running. >>>>>> Note DNS have need time to be updated if you are using others DNS >>>>>> servers

I am using samba 4.1.x using the samba internal dns. I want to make the samba dns authoritative our our zone -- ha.net -- I'm not finding any docs on how to do that. Is it possible to? The issue we have is that if samba gets a query for a system in ha.net that doesn't exist -- it forwards and then we get a response from another dns that we don't want. -- David Bear mobile: (602)

Hai Rowland, I think you are mixing a few settings. http://www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#additional-from-auth additional-from-auth yes | no ; additional-from-cache yes | no ; And www.zytrax.com/books/dns/ch7/queries.html#auth-nxdomain auth-nxdomain yes | no; If auth-nxdomain is 'yes' allows the server to answer authoritatively (the AA bit is set) when returning

On 12/24/2015 11:32 AM, Rowland penny wrote: > On 24/12/15 15:32, mathias dufresne wrote: >> And to get mentioned entries list I used: >> "samba_dnsupdate --verbose --all-names | grep Default-First-Site-name" >> >> This list 8 DNS records related to Default Site. >> >> Next was to change Default-First... by the name of another AD Site >> (sed

> > I followed this url to set up Samba AD DC. > > https://github.com/thctlo/samba4/blob/master/full-howto-Ubuntu18. > 04-samba-AD_DC.txt > > > > I do have it working. I am testing with a Windows 10 VM as a member > > of the domain. > > The machine joins the domain. Also, as administrator, I can create > > and enforce > > Group Policies. from

Can the Samba internal DNS be set as authoritative only (not a resolver)? Can the Samba DNS server be set as authoritative only for the SRV zones (_tcp, _udp _msdcs, _sites) and not the parent zone? Thanks, Chris

Hi, I am trying to get an IP adress, nfs root host and directory information for a xen vm on the kernel level at boot time from dhcp. When the dhcp requests from the xen VM arrive on my server, my dhcp server denies to give them an IP address, it''s syslog reads: May 4 05:13:21 amalgam dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 255.255.255.255 (1.2.3.4) from 00:16:3e:00:00:11 via eth0: ignored (not

hi folks, To forward everything that does not belong to AD (subdomain ad.domain.intra) to the domain "domain.intra" I configured an entry as show below in named.conf.local zone "domain.intra" IN { type forward; forward only; forwarders { 172.16.1.10; }; # ns1.domain.intra }; Within this network (172.16.1.0/24) I have dc1 (dc1.ad.domain.intra), dc2

> > > > > > Is this dns server also authoritative for the same dns domain as > > > the AD domain ? > > > > Yes, the Fedora29 server is authoritative. > > > > > > > > > > > Lets start with the smb.conf from the DC, your DC's FQDN and > > > ipaddress (sanitised if you have to) and the same for your Fedora

I was wondering which anchor would match in the regular expression "(a)|(b)" if both "a" and "b" matches the target string. What appears to happen is that the first match wins, and that's how it is documented in Python, but I was looking for docs on this in R. As far as I can see, the ?regex help page doesn't resolve this. So just for fun, I decided to

On 28/02/16 22:42, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 28.02.2016 um 23:10 schrieb Rowland penny: >> On 28/02/16 21:56, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 28.02.2016 um 22:22 schrieb John Gardeniers: >>>> Thanks Rowland. Perhaps because I expected these basic issues to have >>>> been resolved long ago I never thought to check the SOA

Duncan - Indeed, this has now been well documented; I have called these constructions "Schr?dinger Facts", since they arise from a superposition of truths in the training data that collapse into an untruth when observed. https://sentientsyllabus.substack.com/p/chatgpts-achilles-heel Now, the curious question is: why can it program. Why is its production of R-syntax less vulnerable