samedit not creating valid smbpasswd entry (2.5.3 TNG)

[Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton]

On Fri, 5 May 2000, Matt Ross wrote:

> > > root:0:NO PASSWORDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:NO
> > > PASSWORDXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:[NDU
> > >      ]:LCT-FFFFFFFF:
> > > #
> > >
> > > This is an invalid entry, right? My [globals] section is:
> >
> > no, it's a valid entry, as you requested.
> >
> > you did not specify a password on the createuser command, therefore for
> > security reasons, the entry is marked as _N_opassword, _D_isabled,
> > _U_seraccounttype.
> 
> Sorry, what I meant to say is that with previous versions of Samba (ie.
> 2.0.6 standard) each smbpasswd entry had many more fields, such as in this
> example from an old smbpasswd file:
> 
> chris:114:0x0:0:0x0:[U          ]:D39A56F77F16F766AAD3B435B51404EE:8112DCAAE
> E271
> E437FB42571E51E2BCF:LNT-FFFFFFFF:LOT-FFFFFFFF:KOT-FFFFFFFF:LCT-38EDB215:CCT-
> FFFF
> FFFF:MCT-FFFFFFFF::/home/technical/comtcm:::\\bantam\user1\profiles\chris:::

it did?????????  it does????? uh... where in hell's name did you get THAT
from?????

ok, i need to know EXACTLY where you got your distribution of 2.0.6 from,
and i'm going to have "words" with the people that supplied it.  i just
checked _all_ the versions of sampass.c in cvs main, tng, SAMBA_2_0 and
SAMBA_2_0_RELEASE - *none* of them produce a file like this.

if there is a binary distribution out there that is producing *different*
smbpasswd files i want to KNOW about it.

 
> I gather the differences are because I'm now using TNG? That would explain
> much of the odd behaviour and crashes I have been getting as I only
> restarted the smbpasswd from scratch recently.
> 
> That does make more sense to me now, as I used to get lots of errors about
> the format of the entries.

wel... YEAH!