Mail delivery failed: returning message to sender

[Mail Delivery System]

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to all of its recipients. The
following address(es) failed:

  tc-wedel.de!monscheu at s023250.tk.tc-wedel.de:
    SMTP error from remote mailer after RCPT TO:
    <tc-wedel.de!monscheu at s023250.tk.tc-wedel.de>:
    host 195.222.202.30 [195.222.202.30]:
    550 relaying to <tc-wedel.de!monscheu at s023250.tk.tc-wedel.de> prohibited by administrator

------ This is a copy of the message, including all the headers. ------

Return-path: <samba-ntdom at samba.org>
Received: from zwitter-nt.hamburg.pop.de ([192.168.1.3] helo=smtpshield.pop.de)
	by virus.pop.de with smtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 13QwBf-0002Vp-00
	for tc-wedel.de!monscheu at s023250.tk.tc-wedel.de; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:20:43 +0200
Received: FROM virus.pop.de BY smtpshield.pop.de ; Fri Aug 21 20:22:33 1998 +0100
Received: from [195.222.210.68] (helo=uucp.hamburg.pop.de)
	by virus.pop.de with esmtp (Exim 3.02 #1)
	id 13QwBe-0002Vn-00
	for tc-wedel.de!monscheu at s023250.tk.tc-wedel.de; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:20:42 +0200
Received: from [203.17.0.92] (helo=samba.org)
	by uucp.hamburg.pop.de with esmtp (Exim 2.054 #1)
	id 13QwBZ-0002qE-00
	for tc-wedel.de!monscheu at s023250.tk.tc-wedel.de; Mon, 21 Aug 2000 20:20:38 +0200
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:1543 "HELO ") by samba.org with SMTP
	id <S27794172AbQHUSVn>; Tue, 22 Aug 2000 04:21:43 +1000
Message-Id: <14753.28129.602007.94686 at wire.cadcamlab.org>
Errors-To: listproc-errors at samba.org
Reply-To: peter at cadcamlab.org
Originator: samba-ntdom at samba.org
Sender: samba-ntdom at samba.org
Precedence: bulk
From:   Peter Samuelson <peter at cadcamlab.org>
To:     Multiple recipients of list SAMBA-NTDOM <samba-ntdom at samba.org>
Subject: Re: SURS, machine accounts, etc... [wasRe: Inoltra: Re: Why machines in 
 passwd anyway?]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0d -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-URL:  http://lists.samba.org/
X-Comment: Discussion of NT domain controller support in Samba
X-Mailer: VM 6.43 under 20.4 "Emerald" XEmacs  Lucid
References: <200008141619.SAA00559 at mister.cdc.polimi.it>
Date:   Tue, 22 Aug 2000 04:21:43 +1000


[Gerald Carter <gcarter at valinux.com>]
> Could someone give me a one line summary of why machine accounts in
> /etc/passwd is a bad thing.  Other than it looks messy.

I've got three reasons.

1. It looks messy.  Oh wait, that doesn't count. (:

2. Conceptually it's superfluous.  The point of the password file is to
   hold information about users, UID, GID, etc -- enough information to
   authenticate a user and associate with him a security context.  The
   system accounts (daemon, bin, uucp) are useful even without
   passwords because they give us a UID and default GID.  NT trust
   accounts are not useful for anything -- except as a list.  The UID
   isn't used.  The GID isn't used.  The home directory isn't used.
   Nothing is used except the name itself, and that's what you looked
   up.  So why?

   Yes, I've been told we also use the UID to calculate a RID.  To me
   that's the wrong approach.  Simo Sorce's patch to put the RID
   directly in smbpasswd seems to me at once more sensible and more
   efficient.  Efficient because it means in some cases we may not have
   to look up the passwd file entry at all; sensible because the RID is
   a property useless outside the Samba subsystem, so why not store it
   in a file used only by Samba?

   I still don't understand the problem with the RID-in-smbpasswd
   approach.  I know Elrond tried to explain it once -- maybe I'll go
   back and reread that message.

3. Name length limitations.  Some Unices (AIX is one) can't make use of
   usernames longer than 8 characters.  That means domain members
   cannot be longer than 7 chars, thanks to the trailing '$'.

Peter