search for: permabit

Hi all, Is it possible to have a Samba server use pam as the authentication mechanism, which then in turn authenticates against an MIT Kerberos realm? We already have kerberos up and running, but no Windows Domain infrastructure. We're currently not using LDAP (but we'd want that to auth against Kerberos anyway). I have the Samba-3 HOWTO, but there doesn't seem to be much

I've done that using pam_winbind + courier. -----Mensagem original----- De: samba-bounces+ecarvalho=bmf.com.br@lists.samba.org [mailto:samba-bounces+ecarvalho=bmf.com.br@lists.samba.org] Em nome de pll+samba@permabit.com Enviada em: quinta-feira, 3 de junho de 2004 11:06 Para: samba@lists.samba.org Assunto: [Samba] Samba and Kerberos Is there anyway to have Samba auth against Kerberos? I'm not looking for DC capability, or integration with AD, or anything fancy. I don't want/need Samba to obtain K5...

Hi all, I'm about to begin building a single-sign-on environment (hopefully). We just brought our first set of Windows-based PCs in, and would like to integrate them into our existing Linux/MacOS X environment. We are currently running MIT Kerberos, and would like to create a Samba PDC which authenticates against these KDCs. Another parallel project is to migrate to OpenLDAP. I

Hi all, I'm running Debian/stable with Samba 3.0.2a and Cups 1.1.20final-12 both from backports.org and have the following smb.conf file: [global] workgroup = PermaCorp server string = %h server (Samba %v) ########## Printing ########## load printers = yes printing = cups printcap name = cups #### Debugging/Accounting #### log level = 3 log file =

Why is do_mkstemp fchmod-ing the temporary file? I was not able to figure this out from the CVS logs or my searches in the mail archives. Currently, do_mkstemp does this (*): mkstemp temporary file (which leaves it with 0600) fchmod temporary file (final perm & 0700) And then later it gets renamed to the final name and permissions set to what they are supposed to be. (*)

Hi. Here's a patch for copying the atimes of files when -t/--times is given. I bumped the protocol to 29 since it sends more data over the wire. It obviously does not send the atime if it's sending data to an older rsync version. It passes all the tests (including the added atime.test) for me on a: Linux Debian/3.0 gcc 2.95.4 (debian), glibc 2.2.5 system. Any questions/feedback? I

I posted a patch a few days ago that adds copying of atime. At that time, it was just enabled with -t/--times. After some time, we have figured out that that choice might not have been the best. Here's a new version of the patch (relative to CVS) that adds -A/--copy-atime instead. It also includes a test case. Any feedback on this patch and/or the previous one that I posted?