One interesting thing is that if I put pam_winbind in front of pam_smbpass
on /etc/pam.d/pwauth, AD domain users will be granted access, workgroup
users will NOT and the core dump does not occur.
I can't really know if the problem is in pam_smbpass or pam_winbind. pwauth
code is correct, though.
As expected, if I comment out talloc_free() call, pwauth's pam_end() will
not crash and everything will work (user credentials will be verified and
access will be granted - memory will leak, though)
talloc.c:2249
static void talloc_autofree(void)
{
talloc_free(autofree_context);
}
On Wed, Aug
On 06/04/2013 11:33 PM, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 12:20 +0200, NOC wrote:
Hi all
I'm trying to import our bind dns data for our domain into samba4 using
sambatool. Unfortunately, our domain has lots of (unnecessary)
subdomains, but that's hard to revert after a long time. So
On Tue, 2013-06-04 at 12:20 +0200, NOC wrote:
Hi all
I'm trying to import our bind dns data for our domain into samba4 using
sambatool. Unfortunately, our domain has lots of (unnecessary)
subdomains, but that's hard to revert after a long time. So I will have
to parse the bind data and
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:25:30PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
The NT_STATUS_SHARING_VIOLATION error is correct for exclusive oplocks, but
wrong I think for batch oplocks. I'm currently compiling an smbtorture test
case to test this (we already test the exclusive oplock case).
Shame this
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:36:31PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Hi,
If you open a word document on a Windows 7 PC on a samba share and
attempt to save it (or ppt, etc) it will fail (SMB2 enabled).
Go back to 3.5.10, it works fine (SMB2 removed obviously).
Not sure if anyone has seen this
Yes... more than one person has noticed it...
I think it has to do with SMB2 keeping multiple descriptors open in,
perhaps, a cache,
to the same file...
When Windows writes 'many' (not all), files out, it will first 'create'
the 'name' of the
new file to verify access in the target
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:15:04PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Yes... more than one person has noticed it...
I think it has to do with SMB2 keeping multiple descriptors open in,
perhaps, a cache,
to the same file...
When Windows writes 'many' (not all), files out, it will first
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:36:31PM -0400, Justin Piszcz wrote:
Hi,
If you open a word document on a Windows 7 PC on a samba share and
attempt to save it (or ppt, etc) it will fail (SMB2 enabled).
Go back to 3.5.10, it works fine (SMB2 removed obviously).
Not sure
` Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:15:04PM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
Yes... more than one person has noticed it...
I think it has to do with SMB2 keeping multiple descriptors open in,
perhaps, a cache,to the same file...
Like a 'fake-level-II oplock cache' ???
Hi,
I'm curious if you have any updates regarding this problem. I'm facing
exactly the same issue.
When I'm trying to make a backup with IBM TSM of a Samba share mounted
under Windows, I keep receiving the error message that required NT
privilege is not held.
This problem started to appear when
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:33:43PM +0100, Felix Brack wrote:
Hello,
I use Debian Squeeze with Samba 3.5.6. I do experience problems that
might be related to those described in bug 7892 that can be found
found here: https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7892
I could not find any
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 04:19:21PM +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:33:43PM +0100, Felix Brack wrote:
Hello,
I use Debian Squeeze with Samba 3.5.6. I do experience problems that
might be related to those described in bug 7892 that can be found
found here:
On 05.03.2011 16:19, Volker Lendecke wrote:
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 04:33:43PM +0100, Felix Brack wrote:
Hello,
I use Debian Squeeze with Samba 3.5.6. I do experience problems that
might be related to those described in bug 7892 that can be found
found here:
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 09:42:08AM +0100, Adrian Berlin wrote:
With SAMBA 3.5.x I got error from IBM TSM:
required NT privilege is not held.
I mount SAMBA share as user merc and user merc is added to superusers.
with SAMBA 3.2.15 there isn't any problem
Then I would highly recommend to
Hi
On 18 February 2011 10:42, Adrian Berlin g...@rock.com wrote:
With SAMBA 3.5.x I got error from IBM TSM:
required NT privilege is not held.
I mount SAMBA share as user merc and user merc is added to superusers.
with SAMBA 3.2.15 there isn't any problem
You need to describe exactly what
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 03:55:43PM +0100, Adrian Berlin wrote:
I am using SAMBA 3.5.x and it doesn't work with IBM TSM.
IBM TSM works properly with SAMBA 3.2.15.
Is there any chance to solve this issue in future SAMBA versions?
What exactly does not work?
Volker
--
SerNet GmbH,
On 16 August 2010 12:56, Trever L. Adams trever.ad...@gmail.com wrote:
I am working with Samba 4. I think I have found a bug. It would only be
a problem in the event that Samba4 starts doing inter-domain, forest
level, and cross forest trusts.
Domain Users is 100 on a setup that is
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:13:07AM -0500, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
Try to add -S delldebian2 to that command line
net rpc join -I xx.x.x.xx -UAdministrator -w mydomainname -S delldebian2
Enter Administrator's password:
[2009/07/24 08:46:47, 0]
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:32 AM, Lukasz Szybalskiszybal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Volker
Lendeckevolker.lende...@sernet.de wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:13:07AM -0500, Lukasz Szybalski wrote:
Try to add -S delldebian2 to that command line
net rpc join -I
Hi Richard,
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 11:45:15AM +0200, Richard Foltyn wrote:
I was just wondering whether this possible bug with the Sernet Samba3
RPMs for CentOS 5 is known, since it has not yet been fixed.
When uninstalling the Sernet RPMs for Samba3 (in this case Samba 3.2.x)
the %postun
there were various rpm build problems in samba 3.2.0 - 3.2.10 that have
been fixed in 3.2.11. I would grab the source, untar it, and run
./packaging/RHEL/makerpms.sh
Richard Foltyn wrote:
Hi,
I was just wondering whether this possible bug with the Sernet Samba3
RPMs for CentOS 5 is known,
3. The only evidence of any problem from the vampire command is the
events logged on the PDC, and the invalid passwords. I tried
deleting the trust account on the PDC and rejoining several times,
with Samba on, off, and nmbd on and off. The result is always the
same. The bad password
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:48:51AM -0700, Cooper S. Blake wrote:
3. The only evidence of any problem from the vampire command is the
events logged on the PDC, and the invalid passwords. I tried
deleting the trust account on the PDC and rejoining several times,
with Samba on, off, and nmbd
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
Great catch. Both look valid to me. I think the best fix for
3.2 is to always set rid_crypt to true, and remove all the
other sam_pwd_hash() calls - just do it in the one place.
Ok, here is a quick patch for 3.2. It removes
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:34:48PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 12:15:00PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
Great catch. Both look valid to me. I think the best fix for
3.2 is to always set rid_crypt to true, and remove all the
other sam_pwd_hash() calls - just do it
Try wrtiting 2 or more backslashes. When a backslash appears at the testparm
result, all will work fine. The testparm needs 2 or more backslashes to get
one like the separator. It is because the backslash is a special character.
Ah, and don't worry for the same error/warning at the testparm after
Well, I'll try using default acls.
But from what I remember what ls -l is showing is not what you call
unix rights for the owner group but the mask value given by getfacl,
so that you can see what are the maximum rights on that file without
having to do a getfacl.
If I give rx rights for
not sure that you are right.
Samba use both unix right and posix acl right.
the directory test1 have unix right that autorise smb-Users to access-it.
And you cancel it with acl entry = the smb-users group have no right.
But you not have default acl entry, if you spec default acl entry with the
Additional information below.
Jonathan Johnson wrote:
It appears that you cannot include groups from trusted domains in the
'valid users =' directive on a share.
Here is the scenario as I experienced it (names have been changed to
protect the innocent):
Configuration:
- Samba 3.0.21b as a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Peter Rindfuss wrote:
Hi Everybody,
It seems that there is a bug in the implementation of the MS Windows API
function NetSessionEnum. I am using Windows XP against a Samba 3.023d
domain controller.
When NetSessionEnum is successful it is
Oke... Strange... I will do two things then. Set log level = 10 (now its
3) and compile Samba myself (better for preformance anyway). Will get
back with the results later today.
Thanks so far.
Sander
On Sun, 2006-11-12 at 00:12 +0100, Marc Muehlfeld wrote:
Hi,
S. J. van Harmelen schrieb:
Hi,
S. J. van Harmelen schrieb:
Is this a bug? Has anyone else tried this? And did it work for you?
I tried it 3.0.23 (self compiled) member server on SuSE 10. Here it works
fine.
Have you looked at a log level = 10 logfile? Any messages there?
Best regards
Marc
--
Marc Muehlfeld
Zentrum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Guido Lorenzutti wrote:
When a do net rpc list trustdom I must provide a username and password
for the domain admin.
But if I want to revoke a trustdom I don't have to provide
anything. Not a passowrd, not a user. Is this OK?
Im using samba
On Tue, Aug 01, 2006 at 05:25:25PM -0700, samba newbie wrote:
On a client running FC5 with all packages updated from
yum (running samba 3.0.23a-1.fc5.1 and the
2.6.17-1.2157_FC5 linux kernel), I cannot access
multiple samba shares that have share-level security
using cifs.
This is clearly
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Greear wrote:
While working on adding support for local-binding, I found this piece of
code
in libmsrpc.c. Maybe I'm confused..but should that strcmp maybe be
compared to != 0?
/*change the server name in the server handle if
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ben Greear wrote:
While working on adding support for local-binding, I found this piece of
code
in libmsrpc.c. Maybe I'm confused..but should that strcmp maybe be
compared to != 0?
/*change the server name in the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Giulio Orsero wrote:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3794
Basically spnego fails with vista and you have somehow force to downgrade to
ntlmssp.
To samba devels:
I see the bug submitter sent 2 emails to samba-technical that went
I think this is a repeat of:
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2509
Example 1 in that entry now works fine, but 2 continues to break 95% of
the time.
I'm happy to help narrow it further but I don't have the expertise to
dive into the codebase myself.
James.
--
To unsubscribe
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Kosin wrote:
Is it possible to get the patches page updated with
these patches as they happen?
Or is the patches page for just critical fixes?
The patches page should contain a list of changes that we
are confident in and that fix farily
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
werner maes wrote:
hello
when I try to connect to a share from my windows xp client, it does not
work. In linux via smbclient, there's no problem.
see below for the error log
version = 3.0.21a
security = server (the problem only seems to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-- snip --
Fixed for 3.0.21b. If you could test the SAMBA_3_0_RELEASE branch
and verify, that would be great. The other bug reporters have also
confirmed the fix.
cheers, jerry
Jerry,
Is it possible to
Stephen Bosch wrote:
Hello:
This browsing problem is not going away. We have followed the how-to,
used someone else's known good config, perused packet dumps until we
were blue, and tried replicating the setup in a laboratory environment
to see if it was site-specific.
The problem is still
Stephen Bosch wrote:
If the Samba server is the domain browser, the Network Neighborhood (or
My Network Places) for the domain is empty. As soon we reset the server
to not be a browser of any sort, another machine on the network takes
over, and we see all the hosts. This is even though we can
Hi, Anthony:
Thanks for your reply. My comments are below.
Anthony Messina wrote:
stephen, in your earlier posts, you mentioned that these are windows
2000 clients; is that correct?
Yes, that is true, however -- in our laboratory environment, the clients
are XP clients, and we observe the
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Stephen Bosch wrote:
If the Samba server is the domain browser, the Network Neighborhood (or
My Network Places) for the domain is empty. As soon we reset the server
to not be a browser of any sort, another machine on the network takes
over, and we see all the hosts.
Gordon Messmer wrote:
Stephen Bosch wrote:
If the Samba server is the domain browser, the Network Neighborhood (or
My Network Places) for the domain is empty. As soon we reset the server
to not be a browser of any sort, another machine on the network takes
over, and we see all the hosts.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Williams wrote:
Hi,
I have replaced an older AIX system with a new one running AIX 5.3, all
the latest patches. It is acting as a PDC (I think irrelevant). The
old server was running AIX 4.3.2 with Samba 3.0.14a (upgraded from
2.0.7) ,
Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Williams wrote:
Hi,
I have replaced an older AIX system with a new one running AIX 5.3, all
the latest patches. It is acting as a PDC (I think irrelevant). The
old server was running AIX 4.3.2 with Samba
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Williams wrote:
My gut feeling is that it is related to jfs2. No
concrete proof though. This is the ONLY problem we encountered
with the entire upgrade, and the only thing that we did
radically different was use jfs2 rather than JFS.
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:26:36PM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Williams wrote:
My gut feeling is that it is related to jfs2. No
concrete proof though. This is the ONLY problem we encountered
with the entire upgrade, and
Jeremy Allison wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:26:36PM -0500, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steve Williams wrote:
My gut feeling is that it is related to jfs2. No
concrete proof though. This is the ONLY problem we encountered
with
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:10:24PM -0600, Steve Williams wrote:
That's cool, I will try to get this for you tomorrow morning.
How would you like me to get this to you?
Open a bugzilla bug so I can track this and attach the log
to that bug please.
Jeremy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list
Hi,
since samba-3.0.20rc1 the ldap filter parameter is removed.
you can resolve your problem by comment the ldap-filter parameter.
---
Stéphane PURNELLE [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Service Informatique Corman S.A. Tel : 00 32
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 17:29 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
since samba-3.0.20rc1 the ldap filter parameter is removed.
you can resolve your problem by comment the ldap-filter parameter.
I had seen this note before, so my ldap filter was equal to nothing. I
commented it completely out, but
On Monday 28 March 2005 11:43, Denis Zaitsev wrote:
To start all the daemons in my Linuxes I use the code like:
errtext=`daemon 21`
if [ $? -ne 0 ]; do smth. with errtext too...
And this used to work for Samba as well. But for 3.0.11 (and very
probably not only for this
On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 03:01:07PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
hi,
it's be useful fix in the upstream too:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=135832
I think this is already fixed in the SVN code.
Jeremy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Zoetebier wrote:
| There is a bug in Swat package samba-swat-3.0.2a-3mdk
| The password functions are not working: add user, change password, enable
| user.
| If you add or enable a user, the user will be disabled.
| You can check this by opening
Hi Jerry et al,
looks fine for me, I tried the patch on 3.0.5pre1 and everything is OK now :-)
thanks
~christoph
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Gerald (Jerry) Carter wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could you both (and anyone else having 'username map'
problems in 3.0.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Hi Jerry et al,
|
| the parsing of the 'username map' file seems to be
| broken in 3.0.5pre1 and a few earlier releases. The '!'
| at the beginning of a line is ignored. Something like
|
| !lp = lp
| !chbeyer = chbeyer
|
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jerry et al,
the parsing of the 'username map' file seems to be broken in 3.0.5pre1 and
a few earlier releases. The '!' at the beginning of a line is ignored.
Something like
!lp = lp
!chbeyer = chbeyer
!guest = guest
nobody = *
You might be facing Samba Bug #1297, where
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Could you both (and anyone else having 'username map'
problems in 3.0.4 or later) try this patch which hopefully
fixes the username map bug.
Thanks. Let me know how it goes.
cheers, jerry
| the parsing of the 'username map' file seems to be
| broken
On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:48:32PM -0400, Bob Hansen wrote:
Are you still tracking bugs for 2.2? I think I've isolated a case that
fails under 2.2, but there's no way to report it under bugzilla.
Where should that information go?
If it's a security problem send it to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I report the same problem on Mandrake 10 and Debian unstable. (samba 3.0.4)
the behavior is correct on Mandrake 9.2 with samba-client 2.2.8.
selon Jaume Catarineu jaume.catarineu () upf ! edu
Hi,
I've installed Fedora Core 2 (smb 3.0.4) into my server. Exporting with
SMB my directories
From: Gerald (Jerry) Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Leandro [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: write list [was Re: [Samba] BUG IN SAMBA 3.0.4: FORCE USER]
Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:16:38 -0500 (CDT)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 May 2004
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Leandro wrote:
PARAMETER FORCE USER
I used the samba-3.0.1pre1 without problems.
Now, I use the samba-3.0.4 (bug ms04-011 fixed)
Is this a samba 3.0.4 bug ?! :
Yes. Just confirmed. See
add to each share
writeable = yes
or
read-only = no
This Helps!
Rauno
-Original Message-
From: Leandro
I used the samba-3.0.1pre1 without problems.
When I use the samba-3.0.4 (bug ms04-011 fixed), i can´t write in all
shares.
Is this a bug?!
I use the same smb.conf
#Share
Hi
try write list = %S , administradores, another_brick_on_the_wall
I have seen the `,' in ${man smb.con}
Let us know if it works.
I used the samba-3.0.1pre1 without problems.
When I use the samba-3.0.4 (bug ms04-011 fixed), i can´t write in all
shares.
Is this a bug?!
I use the same
add to each share
writeable = yes
or
read-only = no
This Helps!
Rauno
-Original Message-
From: werner maes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 11. mai 2004. a. 16:19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Samba] BUG: Vfs audit module samba 3.0.4 == share unaccessible
Hello
Maybe
In my case it DOES NOT !
I tried both options
I still get : tree connect failed: NT_STATUS_BAD_NETWORK_NAME
and in my logs
May 11 16:25:28 smbd[15796]: [2004/05/11 16:25:28, 0]
smbd/vfs.c:smbd_vfs_init(319)
May 11 16:25:28 smbd[15796]: smbd_vfs_init: vfs_init_custom failed for audit
May 11
Your not alone on this one, I have had the same issue with samba 3.0.2a and 3.0.3rc1.
I have logged it in bugzilla but have not heard anything on the matter.
Jez
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Alex de Vaal
Sent: 28 April 2004 16:22
To:
On Saturday 17 April 2004 20:21, Wim Bakker wrote:
So I take it that there is no checking whether a user that tries to
connect to a share is , besides it's default group, the user connects
with, allso member of the group that is auhorized to connect to
that share, in this case being the group
On Saturday 17 April 2004 21:26, Wim Bakker wrote:
On Saturday 17 April 2004 20:21, Wim Bakker wrote:
So I take it that there is no checking whether a user that tries to
connect to a share is , besides it's default group, the user connects
with, allso member of the group that is auhorized
On Saturday 17 April 2004 22:14, Wim Bakker wrote:
What is this Unable to get default yp domain doing?
Problem was in the nsswitch.conf:
that should be ldap.conf of course
entry:
nss_base_group dc=ahm,dc=nl?one
should have been:
nss_base_group dc=ahm,dc=nl?sub
--
To unsubscribe from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Yourk wrote:
| I've included the --msdfs option with --with-dce-dfs option.
| Combining all 3 options together doesn't work, if I use only
| the --with-dfs option, it doesn't work.
|
| Is there something wrong I'm doing? Under what conditions
|
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Aaron Yourk wrote:
| I'm trying to compile in DFS with the --with-dfs option. There is an
#ifdef
| WITH_DFS and following that, is some header files that are referenced
that I
| can't seem to find any where. Is this a bug, or is this because my
|
- Original Message -
From: Gerald (Jerry) Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Aaron Yourk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: [Samba] BUG?: 2.2.8a, missing header files for
source/passdb/pass_check.c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE
Needless to say, this patch should be against Makefile.in. Here is the
proper patch.
Bill Knox
Lead Operating Systems Programmer/Analyst
The MITRE Corporation
On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, William R. Knox wrote:
Date: Tue, 25 Nov
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
William R. Knox wrote:
| Needless to say, this patch should be against Makefile.in. Here is the
| proper patch.
Thanks Bill. i'll get this checked in later today. Will be fixed
be in 3.0.1
cheers, jerry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
Sebastian,
Please file a bug report on https://bugzilla.samba.org - first check if
someone has already filed this bug - do a search for it.
When you post the bug report, please help us to understand how to
reproduce the problem. It is near impossible to fix a problem if we can
not reproduce it.
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 20:22, Jérôme Fenal wrote:
Goog morning,
First of all, my setup :
- Samba 3.0.1pre1 to Samba 3.0.1pre3 (RPM home recompiled from samba.org
SRPM);
- OpenLDAP 2.0.27 (stock RH9) + Solaris RootDSE patch, all on RH9;
- Two LDAP servers (one master, one slave,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Reinartz, Ralf wrote:
This weekend Winbind crashes with:
our bug. Can you help me know how to reproduce it?
I fixed a bug similar to the backtrace you posted but
i can't remember if it was in 3.0.0 or post 3.0.0 release.
cheers, jerry
On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 07:03:13PM +0200, Gémes Géza wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
I'm the unhappy reporter of bug596, and I would like to report that bugs
#596 and #532 are 100% the same, I've experimented today with tdbsam,
and found conclusions about
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 10:47:06AM +0200, MaXxX wrote:
# smbd -id255
(...)
Trying to load: smbpasswd
Attempting to register passdb backend smbpasswd
Successfully added passdb backend 'smbpasswd'
Attempting to register passdb backend tdbsam
Successfully added passdb backend 'tdbsam'
-Original Message-
From: Lynn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi. Please help me how to resolve a Samba bug
The Time stamp in Samba is 11 hours behind time stamp in Linux
Is the Windows machine set to the same time zone as the Linux machine?
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the
Each time this happens to me I restart samba. Samba then picks up the time from
LInux. It usually happens when there is a large change in time after Samba starts.
Lynn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Hi. Please help me how to resolve a Samba bug
The Time stamp in Samba is 11 hours behind time
On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 09:23:19AM +0200, Marcus Blomenkamp wrote:
Hi,
'smbd' and 'nmbd' do behave well however 'smbclient' does not, so some of the
other binaries neither i suppose.
I just fixed this in SAMBA_3_0 CVS. Please check out and tell me
if other binaries have this problem.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:21:50 + (GMT)
John H Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suggest you use Ethereal to capture the WinXP startup to see if it
sends the WINS server the correct name registration requests. If your
WINS server does not have all three entries your name resolution for
the
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:40:29 -0600 (CST)
Gerald (Jerry) Carter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# smbclient -M condor
added interface ip=192.168.0.1 bcast=192.168.0.255
nmask=255.255.255.0 Cannot resolve name condor#0x3
In this case, smbclient has to resolve the netbios
Mark,
I dusted off my crytal ball and as I was polishing it there was a small
response. :)
Now back to your issue:
1. Is your samba server set up with wins support = Yes?
2. Do ALL your MS Windows clients TCP/IP configurations for WINS Address
have the IP address of your Samba server that is
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:34:28 + (GMT)
John H Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
I dusted off my crytal ball and as I was polishing it there was a
small response. :)
Now back to your issue:
1. Is your samba server set up with wins support = Yes?
2. Do ALL your MS Windows
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, mark wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:34:28 + (GMT)
John H Terpstra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark,
I dusted off my crytal ball and as I was polishing it there was a
small response. :)
Now back to your issue:
1. Is your samba server set up with wins support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Piero Filippin wrote:
This is present in both 2.2.7 and 2.2.8. It worked on 2.2.5 (I
installed it from RPMs on a Mandrake 9.1 system)
If I try to send a message to an host, it seems that smbclient appends a
#0x3 to host
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 26 Feb 2003, Farkas Levente wrote:
hi,
in 3.0alpha form swat the ldap server parameter is missing (although it
can be important:-) the other ldap parameters are there.
it has been replaced. See the passdb backends parameter in
This multiple print job issue was discussed on the list a while back. You might
search the archives.
In printing from windows, basically, the client tells the printer how
many copies to print. Samba doesn't get involved. I believe there is
no variable to encode the number of jobs. Instead, the
Joel Hammer wrote:
This multiple print job issue was discussed on the list a while back. You might
search the archives.
In printing from windows, basically, the client tells the printer how
many copies to print. Samba doesn't get involved. I believe there is
no variable to encode the number of
I have had the same problem with many windows machines, and there
ws no samba server nearby ;-) Even hitting F5 doesn't help always.
Erwin
--
At 16:34 20.01.2003 +0200, you wrote:
hello.
i am running samba-2.2.7 on a RH7.2 Kernel 2.4.7-10.
i am using the left side (the folders tree section)
Contact Microsoft, this is not a bug in samba.
On Mon, 2003-01-20 at 09:34, Hagai Yaffe wrote:
hello.
i am running samba-2.2.7 on a RH7.2 Kernel 2.4.7-10.
i am using the left side (the folders tree section) of the windows explorer
on WinNT4 SP6 station, and I move folders arround.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:22:03PM -, Goncalo Ramos wrote:
Hi
I'm using samba 2.0.7, on Solaris 8.
I'm having problems with samba. On the log file under
/usr/local/samba/var/log.pcname, I have the following error:
[2002/11/22 14:15:12, 0] smbd/files.c:file_new(85)
ERROR! Out of file
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 02:22:03PM -, Goncalo Ramos wrote:
Hi
I'm using samba 2.0.7, on Solaris 8.
I'm having problems with samba. On the log file under
/usr/local/samba/var/log.pcname, I have the following error:
[2002/11/22 14:15:12, 0] smbd/files.c:file_new(85)
ERROR! Out of file
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
