search for: proporta

...://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Windows7#Windows_7_Registry_settings)? That page doesn't mention Samba4, though. So perhaps it's obsolete?? Currently I'm using a Samba 4.0.6 domain controller; and a Samba 3.6.3 File/Printserver. Kind regards, - -- Chris Hayes, Systems Administrator www.proporta.com <http://www.proporta.com/> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJR3rdtAAoJELgO0A8EguAK7SEH/3iEzaRPpbN4RuR18ZJSThj5 /Ws9heDEksLmF91MfnV83aqpKp11YhoBnXQMFiPBTRcXtUZw6Sr80e/fa+tEYr9O...

Hi, My Samba 3.6.6 file server isn't setting the security.NTACL extended attribute. It can set the user.DOSATTRIB without any issue. This appears to be an LXC container issue, as outside the container I can set this using the setfattr command without issue, whereas I can't do this inside. Despite this not being a Samba issue, I was wondering whether anybody has any encountered

Hi everyone, I'm trying to ensure my various Samba3 fileservers have consistent Samba User/Group -> Linux UID/GID mappings between them. The domain is controlled by a Samba4 DC. Samba3 is used because it's maintained in the distributions that we have deployed already. I believe that using Winbind with idmap_rid is probably the easiest way to accomplish this, however I have had no

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm about to migrate a load of profiles from an old Windows DC to our new Samba4 DC (well, the file server is Samba 3.6.6). Could anyone advise me on how to go about migrating these across. As I've noticed that just shifting the profile data from the old domain to the new one doesn't appear to work for non-Xp profiles (and for all I

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm wondering how essential it is to ensure that Samba User/Group to UIDs/GIDs mapping across various Samba servers remain consistent. I realise that Samba uses the extended ACLs and also uses extended attributes to store blobs of Windows ACL information; specifically the reason for this is that Windows ACLs don't map 1:1 with POSIX