Subject: Re: [netatalk-admins] Samba
From: Andrew Morgan (morgan@orst.edu)
Date: Fri Nov 19 1999 - 13:12:12 EST
On Fri, 19 Nov 1999, Jon Doyle wrote:
> Jonathan wrote the same this morning and I was able to put one more NT
> Server to rest! A great way to finish the week!!! I see one difference in
> Hauke's suggestion : delete veto files = Yes Should this be added to the
> smb.conf file? Meaning should these files be deleted?
Read the docs on smb.conf. Delete veto files doesn't do what you'd think.
Setting it to true means that if a user deletes a directory with veto'd
files in it (that they therefore can't see), samba will go ahead and
delete the veto'd files. Samba will not go around deleting all the veto'd
files it sees. It will only delete veto'd files in situations where the
user could be expected to delete it anyways if they knew it existed.
With delete veto files turned off, you will get weird situations where a
user won't be able to remove a directory because it contains a
.Appledouble folder which is hidden from the user. Samba won't delete it,
and the user can't see the file to delete it... You get the picture.
Lots of confused users. :)
> Andrew, I did not have the hide files in the original smb.conf. Not sure
> why, perhaps due to using SuSE 6.2 distribution? I did notice that those
> that have the Show All (like myself) on NT workstations could still see
> these files, but the Win98 boxes all have the option to hide "know" files
> extensions and hidden files. THe veto option looks like it works best. I do
> not care about these files as long as everything is seen at the Server.
Samba's default behavior is "hide dot files = true". You can use the
"hide files" parameter to hide other files as well, but if you want to be
sure the user won't see them, use "veto files" instead.
Andy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Dec 18 1999 - 16:17:27 EST