K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid users in
the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users field (e.g.,
"smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN, but for
small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on this list have
mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field even hold 75 names?).
So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my users
entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page, is the
service name (files in my case) and not the user name the man page
goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce the user name from the
service name. How does the macro attempt to do this? Failing that, are
there any ideas about what I'm still doing wrong in configuring my
users? The relevant parts of my smb.conf file follow.
Thanks for your help.
Eric Hines
[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No
[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

Eric,

Are you working from the printed version of the book?
Are you working from the update that is on the Samba web site?

What version of Samba are you using?

If you are using a version more recent than 3.0.7 I suggest you use the book
"Samba-3 by Example" from:

If you refer to the WHATSNEW.txt file that ships with your version you can see
what changes were made that may explain why %S does not work.
- John T.

Saturday 07 May 2005 16:17, Eric Hines wrote:
K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid users in
the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users field (e.g.,
"smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN, but for
small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on this list have
mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field even hold 75 names?).

So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my users
entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page, is the
service name (files in my case) and not the user name the man page
goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce the user name from the
service name. How does the macro attempt to do this? Failing that, are
there any ideas about what I'm still doing wrong in configuring my
users? The relevant parts of my smb.conf file follow.

Thanks for your help.

Eric Hines

[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No

[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
--
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from the
printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version coming
out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the throwback that
I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than with reading from a
computer monitor).

I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that said was
that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though, that in your
updated example [files] does not have valid users listed in any guise,
although in many (most?) of the later examples in your updated book, you
still use %S quite freely in the valid users field.

Thanks

Eric

At 05/07/05 17:48, you wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Are you working from the printed version of the book?
>Are you working from the update that is on the Samba web site?
>
>What version of Samba are you using?
>
>If you are using a version more recent than 3.0.7 I suggest you use the book
>"Samba-3 by Example" from:
>

>
>If you refer to the WHATSNEW.txt file that ships with your version you can
>see
>what changes were made that may explain why %S does not work.
>
>- John T.
>
Saturday 07 May 2005 16:17, Eric Hines wrote:
K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid users in
the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users field (e.g.,
"smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN, but for
small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on this list have
mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field even hold 75 names?).

So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my users
entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page, is the
service name (files in my case) and not the user name the man page
goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce the user name from the
service name. How does the macro attempt to do this? Failing that, are
there any ideas about what I'm still doing wrong in configuring my
users? The relevant parts of my smb.conf file follow.

Thanks for your help.

Eric Hines

[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No

[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
--
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:

of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

Saturday 07 May 2005 17:39, Eric Hines wrote:
John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from the
printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version coming
out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the throwback that
I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than with reading from a
computer monitor).

It will be about 480 pages all done, up from 367 pages. A lot has changed. It
has taken me 6 weeks full time work.

I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that said was
that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though, that in your
updated example [files] does not have valid users listed in any guise,
although in many (most?) of the later examples in your updated book, you
still use %S quite freely in the valid users field.

Ah, but the interpretation of the %S macro changed during the 3.0.x life from
'username' to 'DMAIN\username'. Additionally, some macros (like %S) now have
slightly more restricted use. It is better to avoid use of %S if possible.
The only use that is safe is in the homes meta-service. It will fail almost
everywhere else because the user name and the service (share name) will not
match.
- John T.

Thanks

Eric

At 05/07/05 17:48, you wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Are you working from the printed version of the book?
>Are you working from the update that is on the Samba web site?
>
>What version of Samba are you using?
>
>If you are using a version more recent than 3.0.7 I suggest you use the
book "Samba-3 by Example" from:


>
>If you refer to the WHATSNEW.txt file that ships with your version you can
>see
>what changes were made that may explain why %S does not work.
>
>- John T.
>
Saturday 07 May 2005 16:17, Eric Hines wrote:
K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid users
in the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users field (e.g.,
"smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN, but
for small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on this list
have mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field even hold 75
names?).

So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my
users entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page, is
the service name (files in my case) and not the user name the man
page goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce the user name
from the service name. How does the macro attempt to do this? Failing
that, are there any ideas about what I'm still doing wrong in
configuring my users? The relevant parts of my smb.conf file follow.

Thanks for your help.

Eric Hines

[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No

[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
--
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument
with others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:
>
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

Saturday 07 May 2005 17:39, Eric Hines wrote:
John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from the
printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version coming
out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the throwback that

, sorry. The new books, both of them, should be out in August/Sept time
frame. No promises though. :-)
- John T.

I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than with reading from a
computer monitor).

I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that said was
that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though, that in your
updated example [files] does not have valid users listed in any guise,
although in many (most?) of the later examples in your updated book, you
still use %S quite freely in the valid users field.

Thanks

Eric

At 05/07/05 17:48, you wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Are you working from the printed version of the book?
>Are you working from the update that is on the Samba web site?
>
>What version of Samba are you using?
>
>If you are using a version more recent than 3.0.7 I suggest you use the
book "Samba-3 by Example" from:


>
>If you refer to the WHATSNEW.txt file that ships with your version you can
>see
>what changes were made that may explain why %S does not work.
>
>- John T.
>
Saturday 07 May 2005 16:17, Eric Hines wrote:
K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid users
in the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users field (e.g.,
"smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN, but
for small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on this list
have mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field even hold 75
names?).

So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my
users entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page, is
the service name (files in my case) and not the user name the man
page goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce the user name
from the service name. How does the macro attempt to do this? Failing
that, are there any ideas about what I'm still doing wrong in
configuring my users? The relevant parts of my smb.conf file follow.

Thanks for your help.

Eric Hines

[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No

[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
--
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument
with others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:
>
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

I'm looking forward to your book.

Since %S now means DMAIN/username, then won't it also now fail in any
standalone server config since there's no domain to interpret in a standalone?

At 05/07/05 19:24, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 17:39, Eric Hines wrote:
John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from the
printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version coming
out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the throwback that
I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than with reading from a
computer monitor).
>
>It will be about 480 pages all done, up from 367 pages. A lot has changed. It
>has taken me 6 weeks full time work.
>
>
I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that said was
that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though, that in your
updated example [files] does not have valid users listed in any guise,
although in many (most?) of the later examples in your updated book, you
still use %S quite freely in the valid users field.
>
>Ah, but the interpretation of the %S macro changed during the 3.0.x life from
>'username' to 'DMAIN\username'. Additionally, some macros (like %S) now have
>slightly more restricted use. It is better to avoid use of %S if possible.
>The only use that is safe is in the homes meta-service. It will fail almost
>everywhere else because the user name and the service (share name) will not
>match.
>
>- John T.
>
Thanks

Eric

At 05/07/05 17:48, you wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Are you working from the printed version of the book?
>Are you working from the update that is on the Samba web site?
>
>What version of Samba are you using?
>
>If you are using a version more recent than 3.0.7 I suggest you use the
book "Samba-3 by Example" from:


>
>If you refer to the WHATSNEW.txt file that ships with your version you can
>see
>what changes were made that may explain why %S does not work.
>
>- John T.
>
Saturday 07 May 2005 16:17, Eric Hines wrote:
K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid users
in the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users field (e.g.,
"smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN, but
for small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on this list
have mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field even hold 75
names?).

So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my
users entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page, is
the service name (files in my case) and not the user name the man
page goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce the user name
from the service name. How does the macro attempt to do this? Failing
that, are there any ideas about what I'm still doing wrong in
configuring my users? The relevant parts of my smb.conf file follow.

Thanks for your help.

Eric Hines

[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No

[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
--
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument
with others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:
>
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:

of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

Saturday 07 May 2005 19:00, Eric Hines wrote:
I'm looking forward to your book.

Since %S now means DMAIN/username, then won't it also now fail in any
standalone server config since there's no domain to interpret in a
standalone?

In the case of a stand alone server this becomes SERVER\username.
- John T.

At 05/07/05 19:24, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 17:39, Eric Hines wrote:
John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from the
printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version coming
out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the throwback
that I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than with reading from
a computer monitor).
>
>It will be about 480 pages all done, up from 367 pages. A lot has changed.
It has taken me 6 weeks full time work.

I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that said
was that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though, that in
your updated example [files] does not have valid users listed in any
guise, although in many (most?) of the later examples in your updated
book, you still use %S quite freely in the valid users field.
>
>Ah, but the interpretation of the %S macro changed during the 3.0.x life
from 'username' to 'DMAIN\username'. Additionally, some macros (like %S)
now have slightly more restricted use. It is better to avoid use of %S if
possible. The only use that is safe is in the homes meta-service. It will
fail almost everywhere else because the user name and the service (share
name) will not match.
>
>- John T.
>
Thanks

Eric

At 05/07/05 17:48, you wrote:
>Eric,
>
>Are you working from the printed version of the book?
>Are you working from the update that is on the Samba web site?
>
>What version of Samba are you using?
>
>If you are using a version more recent than 3.0.7 I suggest you use
the book "Samba-3 by Example" from:


>
>If you refer to the WHATSNEW.txt file that ships with your version you
can see
>what changes were made that may explain why %S does not work.
>
>- John T.
>
Saturday 07 May 2005 16:17, Eric Hines wrote:
K, I've got this one working, but only by enumerating the valid
users in the "files" share--%S wouldn't work in the valid users
field (e.g., "smbclient //<servername>/files" would simply give an
NT_STATUS_ACCESS_DENIED error). This would be K for a small LAN,
but for small enterprises or LANs with 75-100 users, as some on
this list have mentioned, that becomes cumbersome (would the field
even hold 75 names?).

So now my question is this, since it appears I still don't have my
users entirely correctly configured: %S, per the smb.conf man page,
is the service name (files in my case) and not the user name
the man page goes on to say that the %S macro attempts to deduce
the user name from the service name. How does the macro attempt to
do this? Failing that, are there any ideas about what I'm still
doing wrong in configuring my users? The relevant parts of my
smb.conf file follow.

Thanks for your help.

Eric Hines

[master]
comment = Master work area
path = /archive
valid users = mfwic
read only = No

[files]
comment = The actual backups
path = /archive/%U
valid users = annlee, ehines
read only = No
--
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the
argument with others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:
>
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument
with others comes politics.


>John H Terpstra, CT
>PrimaStasys Inc.
>Phone: +1 (650) 580-8668
>
>Author:
>The Samba-3 HWT & Reference Guide, ISBN: 0131453556
>Samba-3 by Example, ISBN: 0131472216
>Hardening Linux, ISBN: 0072254971
books in production.

>To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
>instructions:
>
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

K, now I'm confused.

The man page on smb.conf (version 3.0.14a) says that %S is the service
name. You're saying that the meaning of the macro has evolved to
(DMAIN|SERVER)\username. If this means that %S is
(DMAIN|SERVER)\service, then I can see that service name and username
would rarely match, and so %S would fail (so why would it work in a
domain?) But if it really is (DMAIN|SERVER)\username, then why does it
fail at all? Is this the slightly more restricted use to which you alluded
below? is the deduction of the user name from the service to run down
the list of valid users/groups to find a match with the user name/group
that was used for the login to the share?

I'm still missing something

Eric Hines

At 05/07/05 20:06, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 19:00, Eric Hines wrote:
I'm looking forward to your book.

Since %S now means DMAIN/username, then won't it also now fail in any
standalone server config since there's no domain to interpret in a
standalone?
>
>In the case of a stand alone server this becomes SERVER\username.
>
>- John T.
>
>
At 05/07/05 19:24, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 17:39, Eric Hines wrote:
John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from the
printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version coming
out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the throwback
that I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than with reading from
a computer monitor).
>
>It will be about 480 pages all done, up from 367 pages. A lot has changed.
It has taken me 6 weeks full time work.

I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that said
was that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though, that in
your updated example [files] does not have valid users listed in any
guise, although in many (most?) of the later examples in your updated
book, you still use %S quite freely in the valid users field.
>
>Ah, but the interpretation of the %S macro changed during the 3.0.x life
from 'username' to 'DMAIN\username'. Additionally, some macros (like %S)
now have slightly more restricted use. It is better to avoid use of %S if
possible. The only use that is safe is in the homes meta-service. It will
fail almost everywhere else because the user name and the service (share
name) will not match.
>
>- John T.
>
><snip>

of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

Saturday 07 May 2005 20:18, Eric Hines wrote:
K, now I'm confused.

The man page on smb.conf (version 3.0.14a) says that %S is the service
name. You're saying that the meaning of the macro has evolved to
(DMAIN|SERVER)\username. If this means that %S is
(DMAIN|SERVER)\service, then I can see that service name and username
would rarely match, and so %S would fail (so why would it work in a
domain?) But if it really is (DMAIN|SERVER)\username, then why does it
fail at all? Is this the slightly more restricted use to which you alluded
below? is the deduction of the user name from the service to run down
the list of valid users/groups to find a match with the user name/group
that was used for the login to the share?

I'm still missing something

My fault.

The user name string is no longer just the user login ID but now in many
places includes the domain or server name as I mentioned. %S is the service
name. In the case of the homes meta-service the service name (share name) and
the user name should be the same.

It is no longer possible to use the %S macro as a valid user parameter.
The alternative means of access control on a share includes:
1. Share ACLs (set using the NT4 Domain Server Manager or using the
Windows XP Pro MMC Computer Managment tool)
2. Directory access controls using either UG (user,group,other) or ACLs.
- John T.

Eric Hines

At 05/07/05 20:06, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 19:00, Eric Hines wrote:
I'm looking forward to your book.

Since %S now means DMAIN/username, then won't it also now fail in any
standalone server config since there's no domain to interpret in a
standalone?
>
>In the case of a stand alone server this becomes SERVER\username.
>
>- John T.
>
At 05/07/05 19:24, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 17:39, Eric Hines wrote:
John,

I'm running Samba 3.0.14a on an FC3 machine, and I'm working from
the printed 2004 edition of your book (when is your updated version
coming out? 470 pages of pdf is a lot to print out, and being the
throwback that I am, I'm much more comfortable with a book than
with reading from a computer monitor).
>
>It will be about 480 pages all done, up from 367 pages. A lot has
changed. It has taken me 6 weeks full time work.

I went through the WHATSNEW.txt with this version, but all that
said was that the %S bug was fixed after 3.0.0. I notice, though,
that in your updated example [files] does not have valid users
listed in any guise, although in many (most?) of the later examples
in your updated book, you still use %S quite freely in the valid
users field.
>
>Ah, but the interpretation of the %S macro changed during the 3.0.x
life from 'username' to 'DMAIN\username'. Additionally, some macros
(like %S) now have slightly more restricted use. It is better to
avoid use of %S if possible. The only use that is safe is in the
homes meta-service. It will fail almost everywhere else because the
user name and the service (share name) will not match.
>
>- John T.
>
><snip>
>
of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.

I'm looking forward to your book.

Since %S now means DMAIN/username, then won't it also now fail in any
standalone server config since there's no domain to interpret in a
standalone?

Please refrain from over quoting and if possible give try to bottom posting.

Regards,

Komal

Got it, now. Thanks.

Eric Hines

At 05/08/05 00:02, you wrote:
Saturday 07 May 2005 20:18, Eric Hines wrote:
The man page on smb.conf (version 3.0.14a) says that %S is the service
name. You're saying that the meaning of the macro has evolved to
(DMAIN|SERVER)\username. If this means that %S is
(DMAIN|SERVER)\service, then I can see that service name and username
would rarely match, and so %S would fail (so why would it work in a
domain?) But if it really is (DMAIN|SERVER)\username, then why does it
fail at all? Is this the slightly more restricted use to which you alluded
below? is the deduction of the user name from the service to run down
the list of valid users/groups to find a match with the user name/group
that was used for the login to the share?

I'm still missing something
>
>The user name string is no longer just the user login ID but now in many
>places includes the domain or server name as I mentioned. %S is the service
>name. In the case of the homes meta-service the service name (share name) and
>the user name should be the same.
>
>It is no longer possible to use the %S macro as a valid user parameter.
>The alternative means of access control on a share includes:
1. Share ACLs (set using the NT4 Domain Server Manager or using the
Windows XP Pro MMC Computer Managment tool)
2. Directory access controls using either UG (user,group,other)
or ACLs.
>
>- John T.
>
><snip>

of the argument with ourselves comes poetry, out of the argument with
others comes politics.