search for: inoccous

...Legality: Further to the last couple of posts regarding legality issue. I notice that the PRC do their licence cost on a percentage of your revenue, seeing as I plan to host no adverts or indeed any commercial aspect I hope to get a licence without actually paying anything. (I've sent them an inoccous email so we'll see what they say) Relaying: Unless you get a business connection in the UK standard upload is generally 256Kbps regardless of your download rate (hence the Asynchronous bit in ADSL). I plan to use my brother's and parents internet connections at their respective houses as r...

Hi, I was wondering if someone had any thoughts as to why "preexec" doesn't fire when "msdfs proxy" is used? Thank you, Greg Enlow -- Greg Enlow grenlow at hk.mailbox.de On 13 May 2015, at 11:18, Greg Enlow wrote: ok ok ... Names have been changed to protect the inoccent. This installation is being used to mitigate a server migration by providing read-only access

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,

...to the last couple of posts regarding legality issue. I notice > that the PRC do their licence cost on a percentage of your revenue, > seeing as I plan to host no adverts or indeed any commercial aspect I > hope to get a licence without actually paying anything. (I've sent > them an inoccous email so we'll see what they say) Do you mean PRS? I suspect there is a minimum fee - it'd be unlikely to get anything for free from these people. > Relaying: > Unless you get a business connection in the UK standard upload is > generally 256Kbps regardless of your download rate...

On 18/05/15 07:36, Daniel M?ller wrote: > Msdfs proxy is pointing to another instance of samba servers, it passes > through. > I think running preexec there on the other instance will do the trick. > > Greetings > Daniel > > > EDV Daniel M?ller > > Leitung EDV > Tropenklinik Paul-Lechler-Krankenhaus > Paul-Lechler-Str. 24 > 72076 T?bingen > Tel.:

ok ok ... Names have been changed to protect the inoccent. This installation is being used to mitigate a server migration by providing read-only access to the new shares under the old server name. We have duplicated all the current shares on the new server (NETAPP) as {share name}_ro and created equivalent shares on the SAMBA installation as DFS proxies that point the client to that read-only

Msdfs proxy is pointing to another instance of samba servers, it passes through. I think running preexec there on the other instance will do the trick. Greetings Daniel EDV Daniel M?ller Leitung EDV Tropenklinik Paul-Lechler-Krankenhaus Paul-Lechler-Str. 24 72076 T?bingen Tel.: 07071/206-463, Fax: 07071/206-499 eMail: mueller at tropenklinik.de Internet: www.tropenklinik.de

Hi, The Server to which the msdfs is pointing is a netapp. Though we theoretically can access the shell on it then begin to mess around there, we would really like to avoid that. Warranty and such make it a bit of a legal issue. That is the reason we went with a separate instance in the first place and now wonder why the preexec doesn't fire. There is nothing in tmp of the msdfs box. Like