similar to: 4.2.14 (or newer) support "Windows for Workgroups 3.1a"?

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:04:29PM +0100, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: Hello Rowland. > I had to read this several times to understand it, then a few more > because I didn't believe it. Well. In the industrial environment you may find everything ranging from CPM-86 onwards... old things talk via RS-232 or 422, the LAN equipped are regarded as "modern". In general all are

There may be various "signing" parameters that you may need to set to "no"  on the samba PDC. I would also disable SMB3.   Windows 10 does support SMB3 but (in my experience) Samba does not properly implement it, so you will get problems.  Windows 7 does not support SMB3 so will fall back to SMB2 anyway. I suspect at this point making Windows 7 and Windows 3.11 interact

On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 20:32:26 +0200 Andrea Baldoni via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 05:04:29PM +0100, Rowland Penny via samba > wrote: > > Hello Rowland. > > > I had to read this several times to understand it, then a few more > > because I didn't believe it. > > Well. In the industrial environment you may find

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 07:57:32PM +0100, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: Hello Rowland. > I understand about CNC, nobody thinks about the builtin PC going > obsolete before the machine wears out, so you end up a machine that is > virtually obsolete. Exactly. > If it does, then creating a VM to run a Unix domain member in, would be > a good idea. I will do it, security is never

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:55:24AM -0400, Gaiseric Vandal via samba wrote: Hello Gaiseric. > I suspect at this point making Windows 7 and Windows 3.11 interact is a > loosing proposition.     It is pretty scary to think that there is still > equipment that requires  Windows 3.11.  Hopefully it is air-gapped and not > part of the electrical grid. I can evaluate different options: I

On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 10:42 AM Andrea Baldoni via samba < samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hello. > > I need to let Windows for Workgroup 3.11 clients (industrial machinery) > connect to shares in the PDC samba Version 4.2.14-Debian. > I have a couple win9x and DOS machine controllers in a similar situation. I decided that having these on the domain was less important

I increased the logging to 10 on the problem member server. Didn't see anything of interest. I did a packet capture on the PDC while typing " net rpc testjoin" from both the problem member server (4.4.14) and a working member server (4.4.13) e.g SMB: ----- SMB Header ----- SMB: SMB: CLIENT REQUEST SMB: Command code = 0x72 SMB:

Good catch. I had set server max protocol to NT1 after upgrading from samba 3.x to 4.x . Some windows clients had problems with SMB2 and file shares (tho this should not really be an issue with the domain controllers.) I have now set the dc's to server max protocol = SMB2 server min protocol = NT1 and the client machine to be client max protocol = SMB2

Sorry for a rather 'unifornative' subject, but i've little o no clue on this. I'm using at work 'pam_mount' with a rather standard configuration to mount via CIFS/SMB user's home directory, from a samba AD member server. This configuration is a bit 'old' (mint sonya, AKA Ubuntu 16.04 as a client, so samba 4.3; debian and samba 4.8 as a server), but work

Items in dmesg when FAT share's are accessed from web browser: CIFS VFS: bogus file nlink value 0 When accessed from FC/L (OFM (orthodox filemanager)): CIFS VFS: illegal date, month 0 day: 0 When the share is initially mounted: CIFS: Attempting to mount //hostname/E Use of the less secure dialect vers=1.0 is not recommended unless required for access to very old servers CIFS VFS: Send error

Greetings, I am working on getting mount.cifs version: 1.11-3.2.4 on debian to mount a share on a samba server Version 3.0.13-1.1-SUSE on SuSe. This was working on older debian systems, but upon upgrading some of the systems to Lenny I am now having trouble mounting shares. Again, this was working and I have smbfs installed on the systems (which is what I used before). The samba server is set

I have a kyocera TA-205C printer that is can scan to pdf and place the file on a smb share. I have a user on my domain (PCEDOM\printers) that can login and access the share. I tested it out with smbclient and was able to create a file where the printer is supposed to be able to put the file. The printer gave a very unhelpful error message, so I did a packet capture to find the error. (see

Jeremy Allison via samba composed on 2020-04-23 09:24 (UTC-0700): > On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 02:59:18AM -0400, Felix Miata via samba wrote: >> Items in dmesg when FAT share's are accessed from web browser: >> CIFS VFS: bogus file nlink value 0 > nlink should never be zero. If an SMB server > returns that, then the CIFSFS client will have > to fake it to 1 at least.

I have several Samba 4.4.x servers (Solaris 11 x86_x64) in a samba classic domain. Samba patches are provided via the Oracle solaris package update system. The two domain controllers are running Samba 4.4.8. A few weeks ago I ran the latest package updates on a non-critical server, which brought it up to 4.4.13. All was OK as far as I could tell. This weekend I updated packages

(This is a follow up on an earlier post but I have tried to summarize a little better.) I am having problems connecting to one samba server by host name (e.g "net use \\servername" or via windows explorer) over IPSec VPN. I can connect via "net use \\IPADDRESS." For every other Samba or Windows server I can connect via host name. The problem host is the Samba PDC

Samba is causing a couple huge problems for the NT admins here since we switched a bunch of machines to security=server and started running nmbd. We're running Samba 2.0.2 and 2.0.3 on a mix of Solaris, HP-UX, and OSF1 machines. One, selecting a Samba server in Server Manager, then selecting Computer/ Services causes Server Manager to crash ("An application error has occurred, blah blah,

Please find the reply inline below On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 12:59 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2020 at 10:42 AM Vinay Madhusudan via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: >> >> > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to >> change the

Reply to Kiran Chandramohan: > You are welcome to participate, provide feedback and criticism to change the design as well as to contribute to the implementation. Thank you Kiran. > But the latest is what is there in the RFC in discourse. I have used this as reference for the response. > We did a study of a few constructs and clauses which was shared as mails to flang-dev and the

On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 11:55:47 -0400 Gaiseric Vandal via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I increased the logging to 10 on the problem member server. Didn't > see anything of interest. > > I did a packet capture on the PDC while typing " net rpc testjoin" > from both the problem member server (4.4.14) and a working member > server (4.4.13) > >

> > Unless you upload a network capture of you mounting and doing the ls -lR > on the client it's hard to say what really goes on. I understand you > might not want to make it public.. but if you do > This is the last thing I'll try after I've exhausted all the other options. How are you mounting your share (which mount options)? > Something weird is going on with