From owner-freebsd-questions Sat May 19 13:41:55 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from leviathan.inethouston.net (216-118-21-146.pdq.net [216.118.21.146]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E1A37B422; Sat, 19 May 2001 13:41:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dwcjr@inethouston.net) Received: from dwcjr (DWCJR.inethouston.net [216.118.21.147]) by leviathan.inethouston.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A7D910F40F; Sat, 19 May 2001 15:41:52 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <068b01c0e0a4$225f4060$931576d8@inethouston.net> From: "David W. Chapman Jr." To: "Hartmann, O." Cc: , References: Subject: Re: SAMBA trouble 2.0.8 ->> 2.2.0 Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 15:41:52 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > I do not understand why SAMBA team recommend using 2.2.0 with this serious bug > (this bug makes samba within our environment useless ...). I think using > the tag 'valid users = %U' is a very common way to limit access to shares > only to those are registered on the local machine ... They just found this bug recently, it is common, but bugs happen and that's why they still have 2.0.9-for stability incase 2.2.0 has a major bug in it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message