similar to: Default route mandatory on a Samba member server?

Op 17-01-2023 om 13:49 schreef Peter Milesson via samba: > Hi folks, > > Is a default route and gateway mandatory on a Samba member server? > > The AD DCs, the workstations and the Samba member server are on the > same network segment. As the member server only serves files to the > local network, I assume that neither gateway, nor default route are > necessary. For

On 17.01.2023 14:54, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: > > Op 17-01-2023 om 13:49 schreef Peter Milesson via samba: >> Hi folks, >> >> Is a default route and gateway mandatory on a Samba member server? >> >> The AD DCs, the workstations and the Samba member server are on the >> same network segment. As the member server only serves files to the >>

On 17/01/2023 12:49, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > Hi folks, > > Is a default route and gateway mandatory on a Samba member server? I would have thought they were mandatory on any computer, never mind Samba. > > The AD DCs, the workstations and the Samba member server are on the same > network segment. As the member server only serves files to the local > network, I

On 17/01/2023 13:13, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: > > Op 17-01-2023 om 14:02 schreef Rowland Penny via samba: >> >> >> On 17/01/2023 12:49, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> Is a default route and gateway mandatory on a Samba member server? >> >> I would have thought they were mandatory on any computer, never

Am 17.01.23 um 14:54 schrieb Kees van Vloten via samba: > Op 17-01-2023 om 13:49 schreef Peter Milesson via samba: >> Hi folks, >> >> Is a default route and gateway mandatory on a Samba member server? >> >> The AD DCs, the workstations and the Samba member server are on the >> same network segment. As the member server only serves files to the >> local

Op 17-01-2023 om 14:02 schreef Rowland Penny via samba: > > > On 17/01/2023 12:49, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >> Hi folks, >> >> Is a default route and gateway mandatory on a Samba member server? > > I would have thought they were mandatory on any computer, never mind > Samba. No, they are not required on any computer. It is just to give you access to

On 30/04/2023 10:52, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > > > On 30.04.2023 10:51, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: >> >> On 30-04-2023 10:46, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 30/04/2023 09:37, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30.04.2023 10:20, Rowland Penny via samba wrote:

On 30.04.2023 10:51, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: > > On 30-04-2023 10:46, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >> >> >> On 30/04/2023 09:37, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 30.04.2023 10:20, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30/04/2023 09:06, Peter Milesson via samba wrote:

On 30-04-2023 12:04, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > > On 30/04/2023 10:52, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >> >> >> On 30.04.2023 10:51, Kees van Vloten via samba wrote: >>> >>> On 30-04-2023 10:46, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 30/04/2023 09:37, Peter Milesson via samba wrote:

On 30-04-2023 10:46, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > > On 30/04/2023 09:37, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >> >> >> On 30.04.2023 10:20, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 30/04/2023 09:06, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >>>> Hi Yvan, >>>> >>>> Thanks for the information, really useful.

On 30-04-2023 10:06, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > > > On 29.04.2023 10:35, Yvan Masson via samba wrote: >> Hi Peter, >> >> Le 28/04/2023 ? 21:17, Peter Milesson via samba a ?crit?: >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> I have tried to get some information about what Samba version will >>> be the default one when Debian Bookworm gets released,

On 30/04/2023 09:37, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > > > On 30.04.2023 10:20, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >> >> >> On 30/04/2023 09:06, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: >>> Hi Yvan, >>> >>> Thanks for the information, really useful. Essentially, it means I >>> need to wait for the official release of Debian Bookworm, and then

On 10/1/18 10:02 AM, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 23:25:48 +0200 > Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> AD server CentOS 7-1804, Samba 4.9.1 compiled from source, only used >> as AD server, with netlogon and sysvol, just like any Windows AD >> server >> >> AD member server

On 29.04.2023 10:35, Yvan Masson via samba wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Le 28/04/2023 ? 21:17, Peter Milesson via samba a ?crit?: >> Hi folks, >> >> I have tried to get some information about what Samba version will be >> the default one when Debian Bookworm gets released, but without luck. >> Will it be 4.17, or 4.18? Or even 4.19.x? Will there be Samba

Hello! I am running samba 3.0 on fc2 in a win2000 network. I want to use only mandatory profiles in the network, but can't get this to work properly. I have set up a "perfect user" on my local machine", and copied this profile to \\server\netlogon\Default User. I have also made this default profile mandatory by renaming ntuser.dat to ntuser.man. In smb.conf I have added:

On 19.08.2023 19:50, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 19:33:18 +0200 > Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > >> >> On 19.08.2023 19:13, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: >>> On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 18:22:32 +0200 >>> Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi

Hai, If you read the post on the debian bug list. https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=909465 You wil seen the workaround also, thats tested and works. And I also suggest you adjest the startup order and to adjust your systemd settings is shown here. Use : systemct edit name_of_service.service This creates and override file in /etc/systemd/system/servicename.d/override.conf

On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 20:15:34 +0200 Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > On 19.08.2023 19:50, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Aug 2023 19:33:18 +0200 > > Peter Milesson via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > >> > >> On 19.08.2023 19:13, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > >>> On

I have encountered this error: cli_negprot: SMB signing is mandatory and we have disabled it. 26595: protocol negotiation failed SMB connection failed when I am attempting to mount a windows xp machine from a linux machine: mount -t smbfs //machine/share /root/smb_mnt -o username=administrator,password=mypass I have looked through the archives and found the following information concerning this

On 31.01.2023 20:27, Rowland Penny via samba wrote: > > > On 31/01/2023 19:14, Peter Milesson via samba wrote: > >> Hi Michael, >> >> I don't see any reason, that the 11025 computer account should have >> any unix permissions on the server whatsoever. The server is setup >> using Windows ACLs exclusively, no unix or posix acls or permissions