Andrew, Looks like we both answered Jason. :)
Glad you mentioned the "smb ports = 139" issue - I'd overlooked that. - John T. On Fri, 5 Mar 2004, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Fri, 2004-03-05 at 09:47, Jason McCormick wrote: > > What are the ramifications of changing security = share from sercurity = > > ads ? I was using security = domain before. Looking at the docs/manpages > > I'm unclear how other shares will be affected (for the sections that match > > UNIX == Windows for IT staff). From reading the manpage, it sounds like > > if guest ok = yes then it skips checking, but does it fall back to ADS if > > there's no guest ok directive? > > Ok, what has happened here is that in Samba 2.2, if a user logged in > with valid domain credentials, and did not have an account on the > system, they were mapped to a 'guest' account. This is not possible in > 3.0 (and I think it was a bad idea in the first place). > > So, the alternative for you is to create a new server (or more to the > point, a virtual server configuration) that is in 'security=share' (so > the remote clients never attempt a user/password login) and has 'guest > ok' (or even beter 'guest only') set, so that all connections are > treated as guest, with no questions asked. > > include = smb.conf.%L is your freind - but watch out, for this to work > you must set 'smb ports = 139' or we might not get our 'called name' on > which we base that. > > Andrew Bartlett > > Andrew Bartlett > > -- John H Terpstra Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
