Quoting Andy Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > This time in "security=server" mode?
>
> You mean "security=domain" mode, don't you as that's what was
> recommended? And the answer to that is yes: security=domain.
yes, this is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Quoting Andy Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Is the bug worth investigating, given that it occurs with a setting
> > that is not deeply supported?
>
> Well I spoke too soon saying it no longer occurs: over the weekend I
> received a number of emails giving the same backtrace that I reported
>
> Is the bug worth investigating, given that it occurs with a setting
> that is not deeply supported?
Well I spoke too soon saying it no longer occurs: over the weekend I
received a number of emails giving the same backtrace that I reported
originally. In syslog, there are a number of backtraces f
forwarded 346069 https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3383
thanks
> Sure, it's worth forwarding upstream. I'll continue encouraging people not
> to use security=server, though. :)
Done forwarding, with th log and smb.cofn information.
I actually should find a way to have automatic notice
On Fri, Jan 06, 2006 at 06:06:26PM +0100, Christian Perrier wrote:
> Quoting Andy Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > After much toing and froing, our domain admin managed to create me an
> > account and samba's now working. Now for the other 45 machines ... :-)
> Which leaves us with an interesti
Quoting Andy Chittenden ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> After much toing and froing, our domain admin managed to create me an
> account and samba's now working. Now for the other 45 machines ... :-)
Which leaves us with an interesting thing to think about?
Is the bug worth investigating, given that it oc
After much toing and froing, our domain admin managed to create me an
account and samba's now working. Now for the other 45 machines ... :-)
--
Andy, BlueArc Engineering
> ... I strongly recommend converting your system to use
> security =
> domain instead (with the cooperation of the domain admin).
In the past that hasn't been forthcoming and that's why we've used
security = server. I'll try and persuade our new incumbants to create me
an account.
--
Andy, Blu
Hi Andy,
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 12:16:56PM +, Andy Chittenden wrote:
> ; "security = user" is always a good idea. This will require a Unix account
> ; in this server for every user accessing the server.
>security = server
>password server = ukdc uk-dc2
>; password server = us
;
; /etc/smb.conf
;
; Sample configuration file for the Samba suite for Debian GNU/Linux
;
; Please see the manual page for smb.conf for detailed description of
; every parameter.
;
[global]
# Do something sensible when Samba crashes: mail the admin a backtrace
panic action = /usr/share/
10 matches
Mail list logo
