password API needed, comments ...

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Wed, 13 May 1998, David Bannon wrote:

> At 00:58 13/05/1998 +1000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> >wondering if people could comment on this thread (some of which is going
> 
> 
> >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".
> >
> 
> I'm with jean-francoi if it means that we cannot ignore these extra
> functions. The beauty of samba is that its easy (read quick) to get going
> and (especially) easy to keep going. Having to create and maintain
> individual config files ? No thanks !

i do this all the time.

smb.conf:
....
[applications]
read only = yes

include = smb.conf.%U

smb.conf.lkcl:
[applications]
read only = no

[root_share]
path = /

that gives me a new share and changes permissions on [applications] from
read-only to writeable.  for me only.  or i could do include=smb.conf.%g
and grant all administrators the same rights...