password API needed

Jeremy Allison jallison at
Tue May 12 17:59:52 GMT 1998

Gerald Carter wrote:
> Rather than a fallback to the global configuration file, how about
> setting default values for newly created accounts.  Once these accounts
> are created, the information, if not specified, is filled in.
> Therefore, there will never been an empty field in the acocunt record.
> Since the space would technically already be allocated in the struct (
> with the exception of pointers such as char*...but then just assign "" )
> as well as in the database record in the case of some relational
> password database.
> Someone please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this how NT does it.
> I am referring to account information, not policy settings such as
> account lockout for failed login attempt, etc...

Yes, that's a much better idea than putting everything in smb.conf.
In case anyone hadn't noticed, smb.conf suffers from a serious case
of parameter bloat :-).

BTW: I'm working on removing the lp_domain_xx() stuff. But I'll
need a buy off from everyone on this list before I break existing
smb.conf files by removing the code. We still get people complaining
that 'domain controller' changed from string to bool, and that was
never used !

> I'm still going to stand my ground and say don't put user information in
> smb.conf.  Another configuration file with the default information would
> be OK, but I think the more effecient route would be to put the default
> information in when the account is created.

Indeed - Luke, are you convinced yet. *No more NT account
parameters in smb.conf* (even as defaults :-).


Buying an operating system without source is like buying
a self-assembly Space Shuttle with no instructions.

More information about the samba-ntdom mailing list