W2K profile creation in samba_2_2

[MCCALL,DON (HP-USA,ex1)]

Hi Axel,
Perhaps I misunderstand: With create mode =640 and 
directory mask = 0750 I would expect the created files
to have permissions of -rw-r-----, and the directories
to have permissions drwxr-x---.  Is this what you are seeing,
or did you mean that the permissions for the directories end up
looking like drw-r-----????
If you mean the last, then it is possible that what you are seeing
is that the umask on the UNIX side is set to do this.  directory
mask = will set the permissions at MOST to what you specify; but 
the Unix umask will override this; if you want to FORCE these
permissions you will need to specify "force directory mode = 0750"
I hope I have understood your problem correctly....
Hope this helps,
Don

-----Original Message-----
From: Axel Thimm [mailto:Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2001 8:32 AM
To: samba-ntdom at samba.org
Subject: W2K profile creation in samba_2_2


against better advise, I am using profiles in the user's home, but this
seems
not to be the problem [1].

When profiles are created at logoff time, the created directories have the
execute permissions removed for everyone! How can this come? A previous
admin had set in the home share
  create mode = 0640
  directory mask = 0750
which I do not find wrong and took over. Perhaps the order samba is
executing
those settings is mismatched? Or some other ugly setting? This is samba_2_2
cvs from before the samr changes.

[1] Just for the curious: NT/2000 seems to cache connections to shares and
if
    two users log in and off right after each other on the same machine, and
    if the profile path was pointing to the same \\machine\share like
    \\samba\homes\profile, then NT/2000 would take that cached connection
and
    retrieve the wrong profile.
    But if the profile path is set to \\%N\%U\profile, then why should that
be
    a problem (as mentioned in the 2.2 faq)? The two paths do differ in
their
    share name, don't they?
    Anyway for the problem descibed above, there is only one user ever
logging
    on the W2K, so this is not a problem there.

Regards, Axel.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de