password API needed

[Andrew Perrin - Demography]

Hmmm.  Well, in my view there's not that much of a cost to adding
(potential) entries to smb.conf, since excluding them is always an option
and disk space is certainly getting cheaper and cheaper :).  But I
definitely agree with other posts that user-level config doesn't belong in
smb.conf.  And in principle, I'm generally against hard-coding anything
that can't be un-hard-coded softly.  So... I like the model that's been
floated, of a separate private/sampasswd file containing information for
PDS users/workstations, with 'fallback' to a default set in smb.conf.  I
suppose, alternatively, one could produce a sam.conf that contains
configuration information just for PDC stuff, but that seems unnecessary.

In my view, one of the beauties of Samba is the flexibility of
smb.conf.%U, etc. -- I don't see a problem with allowing that option for
crazy sysadmins who want to set user information that way.

Hmm, what else... definitely against suggestions of "modular" and
"graphical" configurations, unless they're just interpretive layers over
text files; it's sounding distressingly close to NT.

FWIW...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J. Perrin - aperrin at demog.berkeley.edu - NT/Unix Admin/Support
Department of Demography    -    University of California at Berkeley
2232 Piedmont Avenue #2120  -    Berkeley, California, 94720-2120 USA
http://demog.berkeley.edu/~aperrin --------------------------SEIU1199

On Wed, 13 May 1998, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

> hi samba-ntdom subscribers,
> 
> after all the wonderful discussions we've had on this list, i was
> wondering if people could comment on this thread (some of which is going
> on on samba-technical).
> 
> questions like: do you think it's a good or a bad idea to add more
> NT-SAM-like parameters to smb.conf, like "kickoff time" and "domain
> workstations", bearing in mind that these may have to go down to the
> granularity of a per-group or per-user basis?
> 
> jeremy's vote is no, my vote is "fuzzy-logic-yes".  jean-francoi's vote is
> "if it's a configuration nightmare, absolutely not, and creating hundreds
> of smb.conf.%U files is a definite nightmare".
> 
> luke
> 
>