On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 07:11, David Rankin wrote:
os level = 34
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
wins support = Yes
Only reason I use 65 is that I read somewhere in my FreeBSD days that
anything less wouldn't win out over NT. kept using it ever since.
James
Want to buy
James Sparenberg wrote:
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 07:11, David Rankin wrote:
os level = 34
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
wins support = Yes
Only reason I use 65 is that I read somewhere in my FreeBSD days that
anything less wouldn't win out over NT. kept using it ever since.
James
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:58:16 -0400
Mark Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
I've been running Samba on my LAN for over a year now and I've no idea
what you're talking about. I have a feeling I'm about to learn
something very interesting. What is it you're talking about?
I've got two
HaywireMac wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 08:58:16 -0400
Mark Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
I've been running Samba on my LAN for over a year now and I've no idea
what you're talking about. I have a feeling I'm about to learn
something very interesting. What is it you're talking about?
I've got
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:06:50 -0400
Mark Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
I'll take a stab, since I'm supposed to be an MCSE... ;-)
In a Windows domain, as opposed to workgroup, there is a Domain
Master Browser which controls the network directory structure and/or
routes to shares. If
Mark Weaver wrote:
not bad. what you said brought back memories of my NT server class in
college. Don't remember much from the class, but what you said makes
sense and gives me an idea of whats going on.
Hey, we're discussing windows networking, and *nothing* there makes
sense ;-)
Bye
--
Que
HaywireMac wrote:
On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 10:06:50 -0400
Mark Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] uttered:
I'll take a stab, since I'm supposed to be an MCSE... ;-)
In a Windows domain, as opposed to workgroup, there is a Domain
Master Browser which controls the network directory structure and/or
routes to
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:42, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi All,
its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
master browser,?
my laptop keeps trying to take control.
os level = 34
preferred master = Yes
domain master = Yes
wins support = Yes
--
David C. Rankin, J.D., P.E.
RANKIN * BERTIN, PLLC
510 Ochiltree Street
Nacogdoches, Texas 75961
(936) 715-9333
(936) 715-9339 fax
--
- Original Message -
From: Richard Bown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL
Thanks to everyone who answered
Richard
On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 14:43, Gary Hodder wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:42, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi All,
its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
do I set to make sure the gateway
On Wednesday 01 Oct 2003 2:43 pm, Gary Hodder wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 23:42, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi All,
its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections
for master
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 06:42 am, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi All,
its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
master browser,?
my laptop keeps trying to take
On Tue, 2003-09-30 at 06:42, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi All,
its that dreaded samba time again, two questions
which parameter in smb.conf(file name may be wrong)
do I set to make sure the gateway machine all ways wins elections for
master browser,?
my laptop keeps trying to take control.
Set
Miark said:
Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
their existing user and group account databases. This enables
On September 1993 plus 3677 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
their existing user and
On Friday 26 September 2003 12:34 pm, Miark wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
it didn't make it into 9.2 main...but
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
it didn't make it into 9.2 main...but it'll be there for
9.3/10/whatever :)
The press
On Fri, 2003-09-26 at 10:58, Vox wrote:
On September 1993 plus 3677 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
migrate their existing Windows NT domains to
On September 1993 plus 3677 days [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
it didn't make it into 9.2
Miark wrote:
Samba 3.0 contains the first OSS implementation of Windows NT Primary
and Backup Domain Controller functionality. Customers can transparently
migrate their existing Windows NT domains to Samba 3.0 whilst keeping
their existing user and group account databases. This enables
From: Miark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 12:58:46 -0500, Vox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[Samba 3.0's] in contrib, been there for a while, thanks to
Buchan...unfortunately, they took too much time to get it out, and
it didn't make it into 9.2 main...but it'll be there for
On 15 Sep 2003 19:29:06 +1000, Mark Williamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This must be a simple solve.. but I haven't quiet got it.. I have a
server that's chewing lot's of CPU power while copying files from the M$
machines to the Samba server..
Which M$ machines?
Miark
Want to buy your
On Wed, 2003-07-30 at 02:29, James Sparenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:21, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi James
You were right something was using the port.
Well for the moment there's no contention for smbd , but nmbd is still
producing
Jul 30 09:23:23 gb7tf nmbd[5254]: [2003/07/30
Richard Bown wrote:
Thanks James,
log.smbd showed this:-
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.7a-security-rollup-fix started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(751)
standard input is not a socket,
Thanks everyone who offered help and assistance.
I've found the reason why smbd would'nt
Vmware also want to be a smb server
the reason nmbd was stuck in a loop
Jul 30 09:23:23 gb7tf nmbd[5254]: [2003/07/30 09:23:23, 0]
libsmb/nmblib.c:send_udp(756)
Jul 30 09:23:23 gb7tf nmbd[5254]: Packet
From: Richard Bown [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] samba]# smbpasswd richard
New SMB password:
Retype new SMB password:
getsmbfilepwent: malformed password entry (no terminating :)
Failed to find entry for user richard.
Failed to modify password entry for user richard
ideas
Thanks ,
I've been hammering the keyboard all day,
That got the login on the host machine from the host machine OK.;
Win98 sitting on win4lin can see the host, and the host can see the
virtual win98 machine, but their both refusing acess both ways.
Time to check the firewall again maybe,,
Sorry I'm at it again but just spotted in syslog this, SWAT is still
saying smbd not running
but
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: [2003/07/29 14:21:32, 0]
lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(804)
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: bind failed on port 139 socket_addr
= 0.0.0.0.
Jul 29 14:21:32
On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 2:25 pm, Richard Bown wrote:
Sorry I'm at it again but just spotted in syslog this, SWAT is
still saying smbd not running
but
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: [2003/07/29 14:21:32, 0]
lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(804)
Jul 29 14:21:32 gb7tf smbd[5114]: bind failed
I think the hostss file is OK Anne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# cat /etc/hosts
192.168.1.1 gb7tf.org.uk gb7tf
127.0.0.1 localhost
I checked the process list and nmbd -D is running , but no sign of smbd.
Looks like its getting killed as it tries to start.
I tried starting
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi,
I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
fault , made it unstable wth a mix from cooker.
Since then I hav'nt had samba running as I also scapped the windows
machine when I installed win4lin.
Now I find I need
Hi James, unfortunatly , the're installed :(
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 17:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi,
I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
fault , made it unstable wth a mix from cooker.
Since then I
]
Subject: Re: [expert] samba probs again
Hi James, unfortunatly , the're installed :(
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 17:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi,
I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
fault , made it unstable wth
On Tuesday 29 Jul 2003 4:34 pm, Richard Bown wrote:
I think the hostss file is OK Anne
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# cat /etc/hosts
192.168.1.1 gb7tf.org.uk gb7tf
127.0.0.1 localhost
I checked the process list and nmbd -D is running , but no sign of
smbd. Looks like
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 18:10, Klar Brian D Contr MSG/SICN wrote:
This line is curious. Why is a broadcast ip responding?
192.168.1.255(138) ERRNO=Operation not permitted
Brian its a broadcast not a response, confusing as it split on 2 lines
Jul 29 14:04:12 gb7tf nmbd[4665]: Packet send
Thanks James,
log.smbd showed this:-
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.7a-security-rollup-fix started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(751)
standard input is not a socket, assuming -D option
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 10:00, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi James, unfortunatly , the're installed :(
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 17:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 06:11, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi,
I had to do a complete rebuild of the system here a few weeks ago, my
fault , made
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 11:46, Richard Bown wrote:
Thanks James,
log.smbd showed this:-
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0] smbd/server.c:main(707)
smbd version 2.2.7a-security-rollup-fix started.
Copyright Andrew Tridgell and the Samba Team 1992-2002
[2003/07/29 19:32:47, 0]
Hi James
You were right something was using the port.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# lsof -i :139
COMMANDPID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
vmware-sm 3554 root5u IPv4 6966 TCP 172.16.27.1:netbios-ssn
(LISTEN)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# kill -9 3554
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# lsof -i
On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 15:21, Richard Bown wrote:
Hi James
You were right something was using the port.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] log]# lsof -i :139
COMMANDPID USER FD TYPE DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
vmware-sm 3554 root5u IPv4 6966 TCP 172.16.27.1:netbios-ssn
(LISTEN)
[EMAIL
On Wed, 2003-06-04 at 14:15, Mark Chou wrote:
I've got a few questions, more or less related to samba 2GB file size
limit and MDK 9.1.
I'm using Mandrake 9.1 as a base for mythtv, a linux personal video
recorder (a la tivo). As such, I routinely need to access video files
greater than 2GB
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:48:02PM +0100, richard bown wrote:
AFAIK this is the reason I cant get the two machines to see each other.
When the MDK network config wizard ,from the MDK Control Center, is run
the subnet for eth0 (44.131.90.0) is entered correctly, BUT the netmask
is changed to
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 20:52, Ray Warren wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 07:48:02PM +0100, richard bown wrote:
AFAIK this is the reason I cant get the two machines to see each other.
When the MDK network config wizard ,from the MDK Control Center, is run
the subnet for eth0 (44.131.90.0)
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:24:12PM +0100, richard bown wrote:
DEVICE=eth0
BOOTPROTO=static
IPADDR=44.131.90.129
NETMASK=44.131.90.0
NETWORK=44.131.90.0
BROADCAST=255.255.255.255
ONBOOT=yes
MII_NOT_SUPPORTED=yes
If that's not a typo the NETMASK and the NETWORK appear to have the same
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 11:33 pm, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:44, richard bown wrote:
Now I'm confused :(
The windows box only has 2 users, both have a null string as a password,
ie I login as richard with a blank password.
When I login to this box as a user richard and the
see the machines both ways.
rgds
Franki
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anne Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 4:00 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 11:33 pm, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Mon, 2003-03-31
On Tue, 2003-04-01 at 09:31, Frankie wrote:
if you use windows find to look for the machine.. can it see it then??
Start-search/find-Computers... that bit is'nt in winblows 2k, but it dos'nt
in network neighbourhood when searching there
and enter the hostname of the linux server (in my
Thanks to a local LUG member, got Samba going. Samba does not by default
create a new smb user when you run smbpasswd. You must create it
manually. I'm sure many ways would have worked but smbpasswd -a worked
here and then with a few tweaks she came up roses.
Cheers for the help all,
Jason
Hi All
, thanks Kwan Torstein for the advice , but so far the windows machine
still cannot see this machine.
I have opened ports 137 139 on the firewall , I've altered the
smb.conf as suggested, included the chmod and chown foe the public dir,
but still nothing.
The modified smb.conf is as
On Monday 31 Mar 2003 8:32 pm, richard bown wrote:
Hi All
, thanks Kwan Torstein for the advice , but so far the windows machine
still cannot see this machine.
I have opened ports 137 139 on the firewall , I've altered the
smb.conf as suggested, included the chmod and chown foe the
, the
windows PC's should
still be able to see the linux box..just not access it.
hope that is of some help..
rgds
Franki
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Anne Wilson
Sent: Tuesday, 1 April 2003 3:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 20:33, Anne Wilson wrote:
# Unix_name = SMB_name1 SMB_name2 ...
root = administrator admin
nobody = guest pcguest smbguest
It looks as though your windows users don't have accounts on your box? They
need a user account, with password and username exactly
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 21:24, Frankie wrote:
some ideas..
1. make sure the windows machines and the linux box have the same workgroup
name..
in this caes MDKGROUP
2. Try it with the firewall off.. clear your iptables rules and
eliminate the firewall as the cause.
3. add these to your
it on
the offending win98 boxes.
Cheers
Jason
Original Message
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:33:35 +0100
From: Anne Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
References: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED
at work. How do you change the workgroup
settings for users on their win98 boxen?? I obviously need to change
them to MDKGROUP for it to work right but I see no way to change it on
the offending win98 boxes.
Cheers
Jason
Original Message
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
Date: Mon, 31
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 22:15, Jason Greenwood wrote:
Hi there,
I have been watching this thread closely as I too have been unable to
get samba working properly here at work. How do you change the workgroup
settings for users on their win98 boxen?? I obviously need to change
them to
richard bown wrote:
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
the printer or files on the linux machine.
Had a similar problem running v9.0 with most recent samba.
ok, got the winpcs changed to the MDKGROUP. Without stuffing about
trying to get users to have access to their home directories, is there
an EASY way to allow anyone on the LAN to have access to the
/home/public directory for sharing files from there??
Cheers
Jason
richard bown wrote:
On
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:44, richard bown wrote:
Now I'm confused :(
The windows box only has 2 users, both have a null string as a password,
ie I login as richard with a blank password.
When I login to this box as a user richard and the password is
richard.
I dont think linux likes null
settings for users on their win98 boxen?? I obviously need to change
them to MDKGROUP for it to work right but I see no way to change it on
the offending win98 boxes.
Cheers
Jason
Original Message
Subject: Re: [expert] samba
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 20:33:35 +0100
Wait, Wait, Wait
You don't need to disable the samba password. The way it works is to just
make sure the windows password ('95 OSR2 and beyond) is the same as the samba
password. The windows login (user name) should be the same as the unix and
samba username. Just make it simple. The
Yup, I tried that too
This is what it says:
machine 127.0.0.1 rejected the password change : Error was RAP86 : the
specified password is invalid
WTF??
Cheers
Jason
David Rankin wrote:
Wait, Wait, Wait
You don't need to disable the samba password. The way it works is to just
This is the exact text:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] diggy10]$ smbpasswd
Old SMB password:
New SMB password:
Retype new SMB password:
machine 127.0.0.1 rejected the password change: Error was : RAP86: The
specified password is invalid.
Failed to change password for diggy10
[EMAIL PROTECTED] diggy10]$
WHY
On Mon, 2003-03-31 at 15:21, Jason Greenwood wrote:
This is the exact text:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] diggy10]$ smbpasswd
Old SMB password:
New SMB password:
Retype new SMB password:
machine 127.0.0.1 rejected the password change: Error was : RAP86: The
specified password is invalid.
Failed to
On Tue, 01 Apr 2003 10:25:26 +1200, you wrote:
ok, got the winpcs changed to the MDKGROUP. Without stuffing about
trying to get users to have access to their home directories, is there
an EASY way to allow anyone on the LAN to have access to the
/home/public directory for sharing files from
Hi Kwan, just a quick attempt before going to work, had these results
]
Does this help ??
$ smbclient //FW-GB7TF/public -U richard
Server's Role (logon server) conflicts with share-level security
added interface ip=44.131.90.129 bcast=44.131.91.255 nmask=255.255.254.0
Password:
Maybe the most important setting for me in smb.conf is the
security setting
Setting this to share use to solve the problem with problem with win2k
machines not being able to mount network drives.
try to add security = share
Vennlig Hilsen
Torstein Hernes Dybdahl
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 10:23, richard bown wrote:
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
the printer or files on the linux machine.
Ive rtfm'd several docs
On Saturday 29 March 2003 10:23 am, richard bown wrote:
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
Why do it off-line. That is what this list is for.
using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000) machine to see
the
Thanks for the quick reply
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 15:44, Kwan Lowe wrote:
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 10:23, richard bown wrote:
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
using SWAT looks OK, but I cant get the windows (2000)
Hi Greg
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 15:56, Greg Meyer wrote:
On Saturday 29 March 2003 10:23 am, richard bown wrote:
Just moved up to 9.1,,,nice :))
Is there anyone will to assist me off line setting up samba, the setup
Why do it off-line. That is what this list is for.
Well there are some
On Sat, 2003-03-29 at 11:26, richard bown wrote:
# Global parameters
[global]
workgroup = MDKGROUP
netbios name = FW-GB7TF
server string = Samba Server %v
encrypt passwords = Yes
map to guest = Bad User
log file = /var/log/samba/log.%m
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 03:51, Azrael wrote:
I click on a folder in nautilus, and tell it to share.
smb is running.
I try and see the share from the Mac, and can't get a thing.
This is frustrating, I don't /really/ expect things to be this easy..
but.. I must confess.. I did wish it would be.
On Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 11:04:13AM -0800, Norman Zhang wrote:
Do I need to upgrade samba-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.src.rpm for the latest update? Or
is the following packages are fine?
samba-client-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
samba-common-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
samba-doc-2.2.7a-8.1mdk.i586.rpm
Thanks. I guess src.rpm is not needed as it contains source for compiling.
- Original Message -
From: Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [expert] samba 2.2.7.a
On Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 11:04:13AM -0800, Norman Zhang
On Mon Mar 17, 2003 at 01:06:31PM -0800, Norman Zhang wrote:
Thanks. I guess src.rpm is not needed as it contains source for compiling.
No,... you only need the src.rpm if you plan on rebuilding it.
--
MandrakeSoft Security; http://www.mandrakesecure.net/
Online Security Resource Book;
I have been trying to do the same thing. Could you send me the LDAP
section from your smb.conf offline? Just X out your specific info.
Thanks.
-Dave
On Wed, 2003-02-26 at 14:12, Jim C wrote:
So I've been racking my brains over why my Samba-LDAP PDC wont add a
machine account automatically
Sorry guys, I was dead wrong about this. Well, I was right about the
port but it was only one problem in a laundry list. Some of them had to
do with me second guessing ACLs that were not required and I think I may
have gotten some Windows formatting in my /etc/pam.d/passwd and
Hi,
Thanks for the reply vox.
Vox wrote:
This time Anne Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
becomes daring and writes:
On Monday 10 Feb 2003 3:52 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box, it's the show
hidden files setting in windows explorer.
I did think there
with the veto files token not working
correctly.
David.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of J. Grant
Sent: 10 February 2003 15:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Samba hide . prefixed dirs?
Hi,
If you mean you don't want them seen
This info i have also seen in the Samba Pocket reference book from
O'rreilly.
Robert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of David Stevenson
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 2:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [expert] Samba hide
Of J. Grant
Sent: 10 February 2003 15:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Samba hide . prefixed dirs?
Hi,
If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box, it's the show
hidden
files setting in windows explorer.
I did think there was an smb.conf option as well
Hi,
If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box, it's the show hidden
files setting in windows explorer.
I did think there was an smb.conf option as well as this explorer option.
I'm sure I saw it before, now when I need it I can't find it!
Cheers
JG
Want to buy your Pack or
On Monday 10 Feb 2003 3:52 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box, it's the show
hidden files setting in windows explorer.
I did think there was an smb.conf option as well as this explorer option.
I'm sure I saw it before, now when I need it I
Of Anne Wilson
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 1:28 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Samba hide . prefixed dirs?
On Monday 10 Feb 2003 3:52 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
If you mean you don't want them seen on the windows box,
it's the show
hidden files setting in windows
On Monday 03 Feb 2003 5:53 pm, J. Grant wrote:
Hi,
Its a trivial question, but i cant find the answer, could someone tell
me how to hide . prefixed dirs in samba please?
I remember seeing an option in smb.conf but I can see it in the mdk9
version.
If you mean you don't want them seen on
you can try lineighborhood which can be downloaded at:
http://www.bnro.de/~schmidjo/
or you can use Gnomba:
http://online.linuxberg.com/internet/preview/31546.html
--- Jorris Graad [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've installed samba 2.2.7a and can make the windows
hosts at my local network access
Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Dave Seff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mandrake Expert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [expert] Samba Bug Found!!!
It looks like Mandrake's latest patch/package (samba-2.2.3a-10.1mdk) for
Samba has a bug. If you use Samba as a PDC,
Buchan Milne wrote:
It looks like Mandrake's latest patch/package (samba-2.2.3a-10.1mdk) for
Samba has a bug. If you use Samba as a PDC, New users added will not be
able to
+log on to the domain. The problem lies in the NT password hash section
of the smbpasswd file.
I would be interested in
Vincent Danen wrote:
Well, maybe mandrakeexpert interface is better for newbies, but for bug
querying/reporting/tracking seems totally useless to me.
Be that as it may, it has no bearing on my point. These gripes and
demands of Mandrake, where is the update?!? are made on a mailing
list
On Mon Jan 13, 2003 at 10:06:48AM +0100, Luca Olivetti wrote:
Well, maybe mandrakeexpert interface is better for newbies, but for bug
querying/reporting/tracking seems totally useless to me.
Be that as it may, it has no bearing on my point. These gripes and
demands of Mandrake, where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim C wrote on Sat, Jan 11, 2003 at 12:29:16PM -0800 :
Heck, I would just like to be able to add a user or a computer to an
LDAP db in a reasonable manner. That would be nice.
urpmi directory_administrator
It's in Main both in 9.0 and in Cooker,
Vincent Danen wrote:
If I'm not wrong there's no bugzilla for released distributions.
https://qa.mandrakesoft.com is only for cooker.
Sorry, you're right. I meant MandrakeExpert, which is where all
released problems should be sent to.
Well, maybe mandrakeexpert interface is better for
On Sun Jan 12, 2003 at 04:25:42PM +0100, Luca Olivetti wrote:
If I'm not wrong there's no bugzilla for released distributions.
https://qa.mandrakesoft.com is only for cooker.
Sorry, you're right. I meant MandrakeExpert, which is where all
released problems should be sent to.
Well, maybe
as i understood it, the 2 gig limit wasa fat problem, not a Samba problem,
On Friday 10 January 2003 09:31 pm, Vincent Danen wrote:
On Fri Jan 10, 2003 at 06:34:31PM -0500, Mark Weaver wrote:
Hey Mandrake,
I see there is still no regular update to Samba to fix the very nasty
2gb file
Vincent Danen wrote:
It's also unfair to be sitting around and yelling Hey Mandrake when
are you going to fix this bug that no one reported?. Is there a
bugzilla entry for this?
If I'm not wrong there's no bugzilla for released distributions.
https://qa.mandrakesoft.com is only for cooker.
Heck, I would just like to be able to add a user or a computer to an
LDAP db in a reasonable manner. That would be nice.
Jim C.
Bob Puff@NLE wrote:
Hey Mandrake,
I see there is still no regular update to Samba to fix the very nasty 2gb file limit.
So, I checked cooker. There -is- one in
On Sat Jan 11, 2003 at 05:21:42PM +0100, Luca Olivetti wrote:
It's also unfair to be sitting around and yelling Hey Mandrake when
are you going to fix this bug that no one reported?. Is there a
bugzilla entry for this?
If I'm not wrong there's no bugzilla for released distributions.
I haven't tried any of the newer versions. Just the one from
MandrakeUpdate packages from mdk 8.2.
I was considering updating samba to 2.2.7 because I would like to avoid
the security problem.
-Dave
On 01/09/03 22:11 -0500, Mark Weaver wrote:
Dave Seff wrote:
It looks like Mandrake's latest
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003, Dave M Seff wrote:
I haven't tried any of the newer versions. Just the one from
MandrakeUpdate packages from mdk 8.2.
I was considering updating samba to 2.2.7 because I would like to avoid
the security problem.
You will want to upgrade Squid as well, if you use it.
1 - 100 of 380 matches
Mail list logo
