On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Dustin J. Mitchell wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Gene Heskett <gene.heskett AT verizon DOT 
>net> 
wrote:
>> What else can I fiddle with?  Something in smb.conf maybe?  It seems to me
>> that there should be something there to restrict the search to local, but
>> I don't seem to find that.  And I'd consider having samba go out on the
>> net looking for name resolution to be a security hole, a big one at that.
>
>Well, this is only during configure, and it's only a 40-second
>timeout, so I'm not *too* concerned about it (modulo changing the
>hostname to somethign less likely to actually resolve).
>
>This code to detect version "1" versus version "2" (these are internal
>Amanda notions of "older" and "newer" sambas .. I don't know if they
>correspond to any particular Samba version numbers) of samba has been
>around for a long time, and my impression is that folks who use Samba
>have to keep it up to date because MS hostfixes knock old versions out
>of commission all the time.  Would it be OK to drop support for
>version "1"?  If we can do that, we can drop this test as well, and
>just assume that if a binary named 'smbclient' is present, that it's a
>functional version of Samba's smbclient.
>
>I need to hear from some Samba users here before I can do anything.
>
>Dustin

I keep my samba's as upto date as the distribution do, so I have serious 
doubts there is an actual, functioning, samba setup with less than a 3.0.x 
version extant on the planet.  OTOH, I'm not the whole planet either.


-- 
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
The wind doth taste so bitter sweet,
        Like Jaspar wine and sugar,
It must have blown through someone's feet,
        Like those of Caspar Weinberger.
                -- P. Opus