Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 26 Nov 2018 17:21:21 +0000
From:      Carmel NY <carmel_ny@outlook.com>
To:        FreeBSD <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Possible updating of "mount_smbfs"
Message-ID:  <BL0PR20MB2098F7C9535D37FF42EC618980D70@BL0PR20MB2098.namprd20.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <74ad82b9-719d-6acd-c371-bcf6515a0d57@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <DM5PR20MB21024CFFA05B729FD51C876080D60@DM5PR20MB2102.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <20181126012820.2f862cc2.freebsd@edvax.de> <BL0PR20MB2098022390FEB4070058D99A80D70@BL0PR20MB2098.namprd20.prod.outlook.com> <74ad82b9-719d-6acd-c371-bcf6515a0d57@FreeBSD.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Mon, 26 Nov 2018 14:17:17 +0000, Matthew Seaman stated:

>On 26/11/2018 12:02, Carmel NY wrote:
>> Honestly, it it is not updated to work with SMB3 or better, it is for al=
l
>> practical purposes, impotent. Perhaps, FreeBSD 12 would be a logical pla=
ce
>> to put the utility to bed. =20
>
>FreeBSD 12.0 is almost out the door, and the chance to make such changes=20
>there is long gone.  FreeBSD 12.1 or 13.0 would be where mount_smbfs=20
>could be removed, and now is actually a pretty good point at which to=20
>propose deprecating SMBv1 support for those versions.
>
>Traditionally, that starts by sending an e-mail to freebsd-arch@... --=20
>if you'ld like to be credited for the suggestion, please by all means do=20
>propose removing mount_smbfs there.  Of course, it will need a src=20
>committer to actually do the deed, but that's not likely to be a major=20
>obstacle.
>
>	Cheers,
>
>	Matthew

Thanks for the suggestion Matthew. I just sent them an email proposing just
that.

--=20
Carmel



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?BL0PR20MB2098F7C9535D37FF42EC618980D70>