Charlie Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> That is true. But do you know for sure that more than one of these > servers has a netlogon share, and that that doesn't cause a problem? Yes. > I think that what Gordon is concerned about is clients popping up and > saying "who has a netlogon service?", and then using the netlogon > service of the first server to respond with a "yes". I appreciate where this thinking originates but had you opened a discussion on the topic I believe you would have discovered this is not a valid concern. ----------- Commentary: ----------- In any event I feel the 'process' here needs some improvement. Let me offer my thoughts: Before anything is thought to being a problem, and currently implemented and tested fragments are 'removed/guarded/changed' there should be an open discussion to check for feedback, prior to implementation. This is especially true if you are changing anything that is a current default as 'someone' might be relying on the current settings. A lot of people have poured time and effort into testing the current devinfo provided samba fragments. To inititate such a major change without open discussion is counter productive. Even if we agree to disagree it would be better to discuss first, remove second, and those in disagreement can implement their own templates-custom fragments. Regards, -- Darrell May DMC Netsourced.com http://netsourced.com http://myEZserver.com -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
