similar to: 2nd POSTING: Samba PDC shares causing errors in MS Word 97 SR2

Hi, I support around 15 Windows 2000 Clients who log into and have home directories on a Samba PDC running under RedHat 7.3. The version of samba I am using is 2.5.5. All the clients use Word97 SR2 and they all get the following error while working on documents stored on their home directories on the PDC: Word failed reading from this file (filename.doc). Please restore the network

Does anyone have any idea what to try next? Here are the steps I have taken and the problem: (I wanted to post my question on the first line before I explained the problem and what I have tried) ---------- Node 0 has the file system mounted just fine and works great. When trying to mount on Node 1: `mount.ocfs2 /dev/mapper/data /cluster/ data` I get this error after about 30 seconds:

Hi, I have the shown (end of this post) net work configuration. In a "few" words: My Debian Sarge server is connected to a D-Link ADSL Router (DSL-562T). DMZ is enabled for the Debian Sarge IP on the Router. My Linux server has two NIC''s. ethlan = internal Net ethdsl = external -> D-Link My Linux server is configured to make NAT via iptables. Current state -

Hi, I have a linux box with two dsl modems on it (connection is done via pppoe), I''m trying to route default traffic on the primary connection (ppp0) and mail traffic on another one (ppp1). This traffic will come from the localhost. I run Slackware 9.1 (Kernel 2.4.22), recompiled with necessary options for using iproute2. According to the advanced routing howto, I did the following

Hello, I have an issue with multiple connections to the Internet. I tried following the steps described in [1] but things are not working properly. I would like the network setup as follows: ______ | |- ppp0 -- Dynamic IP (PPPoE on eth2) Internal---- eth0 | GW | |____|- eth1 -- Static IP -> Static''s GW From [1], the

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10035 Summary: rsync hangs in solaris Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: nestor.urquiza at gmail.com QAContact:

https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=429 ------- Additional Comments From laforge@netfilter.org 2006-01-25 11:00 MET ------- Please specifically tell us about the exact kernel version, any patches that you might have applied, and the iptables version that you're using. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.netfilter.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You

Hi, Thanks for the fast response, .)Okay I tried your suggestion for my port 8099 and nothing happened: The tcp ip information goes from a firewall to my port 8099 and this port is than routed to the original 8080, I do that because I don`t want to dirturb my port 8080. But it seams the ingress filter doesn`t work on it!! iptables -L -t nat Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt

Hello, I am running Shorewall 2.0.2f, on SuSE 9.2 distro, kernel 2.6.8-24.11-default My ip addr show output is as follows: 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 brd 127.255.255.255 scope host lo inet6 ::1/128 scope host valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever 2: eth0:

Hi?guys. There is a wierd problem with iptables recently, hopes somebody can help me. I have installed Centos 7.2.1511 on a bare metal Dell server these days, disabled firewalld and enabled iptables.services, and setup a group of very simple rules, as the following: # iptables-save # Generated by iptables-save v1.4.21 on Tue Apr 23 09:15:14 2019 *filter :INPUT ACCEPT [0:0] :FORWARD ACCEPT

We are using Centos behind an F5 Bigip load balancer. The linux box is using bonding and tagged VLAN's Everything works fine except that when traffic is forwarded from the BigIP to the linux box on the VLAN where the web server is running the linux box returns the traffic on the wrong VLAN, It returns traffic on the lowest ordered VLAN. ie. here is a tcpdump on my load balancer showing

Hi. I''ve got here the following configuration: (turn on fixed pitch font to be able to see the scheme in a more accurately way) Client machines <-----> ADSL Router 1 <-----> INTERNET (192.168.0.0/24) (192.168.0.229) NAT Client machines <-----> ADSL Router 1 <-----> INTERNET (192.168.1.0/24) (192.168.1.229) NAT [if doesn''t really

I''m having another little problem with my new firewall. I want outgoing port 25 from my mail server to appear on the address 65.223.121.227 so I created the file masq: eth2 192.168.124.18 65.223.121.227 tcp 25 eth1 eth5 eth1 eth3 eth1 eth4 eth1 == net0 == 209.189.103.196/27 eth2 == net1 == 65.223.121.237/28 eth3 == dmz0 eth4 == dmz1 eth5 == loc ==

Hello, first of all thank you for your patience and having answered you. I tried to change port from 8000 to 8001 but nothing happened. I am using a vps server so I don?t need to open port from router. I paste here all my icecast.xml configuration file. can you please give a llok and tell me if all seems ok to you? still thank you! *** root at mail2:/etc/icecast2# nano icecast.xml GNU nano

hi, i have a strange situtation. i try to connect to my machine with ssh and the packets are dropped but i have at the top of my rules an accept. the configuration looks like: rules-file: ----------- ACCEPT net fw tcp 22 - TCPDUMP-log: ------------ 12:16:08.153934 84.153.98.30.1322 > [my-destination-machine].ssh: S 3717288415:3717288415(0) win 64240 <mss

On 27.06.2018 13:43, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Wed, 27 Jun 2018 13:04:12 +0200 > basti via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Hello, >> when I try to login to AD member via IP-Address from Windows Client it >> works. >> >> Login to AD Member from Windows Client via DNS Name fail. >> Windows Errorcode: 0x80070035 >>

Hello, Stephen, thank you for input. Yes, these servers have the same firewall rules, and both of them have the same problem from time to time, most of time they are good. Actually, these servers are newly installed to be used as the Glusterfs storage server, so not much data flowing at this time. >From the sysctl output, I suppose it can't be a conntrack table overflow :

If understand the setup correctly based on previous emails, it looks like this: [Internet] <-> [202.172.122.211 (eth1) {Gateway Machine} 202.172.122.74 (eth2)] <-> [202.172.122.75 (eth1) {Other Machine}] So, according to your emails, your external (eth1) interface on the Gateway machine ** needs to be .209 not .211 or .210 ** (as this is where the ISP''s

I have a NetGear FV318 living in my DMZ, with one of its LAN-ports living in my LOC zone. What rules are needed in shorewall to allow a certain subnet to make connections to this device from the net zone? Do I define it as a tunnel in shorewall/tunnels, or do I just allow some selected traffic to the DMZ IP? I am not sure which of the docs are right for me in this case?

[newbie question] Before using Shorewall I used to manually write some very short iptables rules which where probably much poorer than what this Shorewall gem does but I could "follow" them very easily. Now reading the output of iptable -L gives me a terrible headache. Is there some tool that graphs the rules in order to "see" them better ? For instance I was experiencing