-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It would be nice to update the samba.schema only once, so we should
now also add the account policy values, etc ... to sambaDomainInfo
(all stuff we'll later use for the SAM system) Also add sambaGroup
now, would be nice.(with the stuff we'll
At 20:26 17.10.2002 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
This patch puts a RID allocator into the passdb backend. The outside interface
are two calls.
pdb_max_used_rid is for net rpc vampire to set the maximum RID that the PDC
gave us.
pdb_allocate_rid_for_gid allocates a new RID for the
A 'make clean' can do wonders...
this was th efirst thing I do :-)
In any case, what do you mean by 'HEAD works'? Is your patch against
3.0 + your passdb patch or .. ?
I mean clean HEAD without my patch :-)
On the patch - the 'wrapper' functions need to include a while loop.
do {
At 21:30 17.10.2002 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+++ /home/vlendec/head/source/passdb/pdb_ldap.c Thu Oct 17 21:26:37 2002
@@ -1445,7 +1445,7 @@
} else {
ldap_msgfree(result);
}
- return NT_STATUS_UNSUCCESSFUL;
+ return ret;
}
Hi Volker,
thanks a
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
!!! a few line above I read 'return NT_STATUS_OK' but it
was 'ret = NT_STATUS_OK' :-(
but now it works! :-)
what I need is to test is the non_unix_account stuff.
I browsed the code and the ldap schema changes... if I don't
misunderstand, the the nextrid is
At 09:42 18.10.2002 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
It would be nice to update the samba.schema only once, so we should
now also add the account policy values, etc ... to sambaDomainInfo
(all stuff we'll later use for the SAM system) Also add
At 10:30 18.10.2002 +0200, Ignacio Coupeau wrote:
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
!!! a few line above I read 'return NT_STATUS_OK' but it
was 'ret = NT_STATUS_OK' :-(
but now it works! :-)
what I need is to test is the non_unix_account stuff.
Should this mail a responde to the id allocator
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
At 10:30 18.10.2002 +0200, Ignacio Coupeau wrote:
Stefan (metze) Metzmacher wrote:
!!! a few line above I read 'return NT_STATUS_OK' but it
was 'ret = NT_STATUS_OK' :-(
but now it works! :-)
what I need is to test is the non_unix_account stuff.
Should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Jon Monroe wrote:
Hi Jerry,
I tried disabling kernel oplocks. I also tried disabling in different
combinations:
oplocks
level2 oplocks
posix locking
locking
All variations seem to produce similar results -- 2 extra
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve,
Please post general use questions to the [EMAIL PROTECTED]
list (see http://lists.samba.org/listinfo/samba for details).
The samba-technical mailing is for discussions of Samba
internals and development issues. Thanks.
btwmake sure
Hello list members,
I'm trying to add printerdrivers to a Samba 2.2.6 PDC with the Add Printer
Wizard that comes with Windows XP SP1. On Windows I get an Error Message
saying Operation aborted, log.smbd tells me: couldn't find service
::{2227a280-3aea-1069-a2de-08002b30309d}
Did anyone else
sorry, but I answered about about this (the next rid of course):
+ new_rid = (uint32)atol(old_rid_string);
+ if (rid new_rid) new_rid = rid;
+ /* Try to make the modification atomically by enforcing the
+ old value in the delete mod.
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:23, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
if some one has 27.000 users and these users may access to any computer in
10 domains, and one (sub)tree is required for domain, then we enforce to
maintain 270.000 accounts... 27.000 per domain, and this may be a pain...
is a real
Perhaps there is a more natural way for storing the account/group flag
information in LDAP. What about making acctFlags/groupFlags a
multi-valued attribute? It would be easier for provisioning
applications to perform modifications. It would also open the door for
more useful searches.
OK. The other thing that comes to mind is change notify. Not sure if you
can disable this (is nt smb support required for change notify? I don't
remember).
cheers, jerry
Hmm... interesting... hadn't considered that. I don't know about NT smb
support requirements, but mine is default to
Simo Sorce wrote:
On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 13:23, Stefan Metzmacher wrote:
if some one has 27.000 users and these users may access to any computer in
10 domains, and one (sub)tree is required for domain, then we enforce to
maintain 270.000 accounts... 27.000 per domain, and this may be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
Do I understand correctly that Samba does not offer a per-share
password, even when running under security=share?
In the original, outdated design of SMB (COREP.TXT) passwords were
assigned to
Better yet is to support the sAMAccountType / userAccountControl
attributes used by Active Directory. The only catch is that, for
these to be useful, you really need to implement the bitwise
LDAP matching rules. We implemented that for OpenLDAP, so if
you're using the latest version (2.1.??) it
hi
i am an administrator of university computer center and have such problem:
some auditories using for student's self-education and only allowed students
can work there. i have create patch for samba (3.20alpha) with use two files:
smbuser.deny and smbuser.allow to solve this problem.
(patch for
I get the same thing when using Konqueror, which uses libsmbclient for SMB
URL interpretation. It looks to be a bug in the URL parsing.
I don't have time to look at it now, but I'll see what can be done.
Chris -)-
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:59:43AM +0400, BoresExpress wrote:
To view
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 03:33:09PM -, ÌÉÓÉÎ ÂÒÁÚÅÒ wrote about 'Fwd: patch to
samba':
hi
i am an administrator of university computer center and have such problem:
some auditories using for student's self-education and only allowed students
can work there. i have create patch for samba
We have some files on a Unix/Samba server which the users can access from
both the Unix side and Windows NT side. We'd like to implement file locking
on these files for client applications which could run from both the unix
boxes and the NT boxes. However, I cannot seem to get it right.
On NT, we
On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 08:43:53AM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
:
Samba always bvalidates a username/password pair. For a share level
equivalent service, do something like
[share1]
username = acct1
force user = acct1
path = /tmp
It really depends on which OS you are using.
Currently only linux 2.4.x (whith x something than 4 I think) and IRIX
latest kernels have support for kernel oplocks and the ability to share
locks beetween samba and nfs.
On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 00:28, Jinhai Yang wrote:
We have some files on a
Thanks Simo,
About the OS, the Windows side is Windows 2000, the Unix side is Tru64 5.1a
(the OS for the DEC--Compaq--HP Alpha box). The disk is local to the Unix
box, not a NFS mounted volume though. Does that make a difference?
-Jinhai
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 18 Oct 2002, Christopher R. Hertel wrote:
That's what I thought. I'm not trying to make share-level security work
as originally intended, I'm just trying to figure out how we do it.
If the client sent an SMBsessetupX request, we save the
Hi,
When I try
net user list rsharpe
I get:
rpc command function failed! (NT_STATUS_NONE_MAPPED)
Why is this?
Regards
---
Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.richardsharpe.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This command gives an error message
Invalid option ï (-17)
So, it seems that this portion is not implemented. Does anyone know what
the intent of these flags was?
Regards
---
Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], www.richardsharpe.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi!
This fixes some bugs I found when playing with NT4 usrmgr.exe.
Volker
diff -ur samba/cvs/head/samba/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c
head/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c
--- samba/cvs/head/samba/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c Sat Oct 12 11:30:54 2002
+++ head/source/rpc_parse/parse_samr.c Sat
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:42:15AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
This fixes some bugs I found when playing with NT4 usrmgr.exe.
Please check these in..
Jeremy.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 12:42:15AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
This fixes some bugs I found when playing with NT4 usrmgr.exe.
Please check these in..
Looks good to me, but watch that with the srv_samr_util bug, it also
exists int the info_23 code.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
This fixes some bugs I found when playing with NT4 usrmgr.exe.
With the unknown_3 stuff - seeing we can't actually use if for anything,
should we remove it compleatly?
Andrew Bartlett
--
Andrew Bartlett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all!
I've tried to investigate what docs still need work before 3.0:
Outdated docs:
docs/OID/allocated-arcs.txt - does this file really belong here?
docs/OID/samba-oid.mail - does this file really belong here?
docs/announce - out of date (announces 2.2.0) - should it go away?
docs/history -
33 matches
Mail list logo
