Kevin Colby kevinc at
Fri Dec 29 16:21:51 GMT 2000

Simo Sorce wrote:
> [...] still I will push to add workgroup searchability in the string:
> smb://[[domain;]user[:password]@][workgroup]server/[share/[path/]]

Why?  I think it has been clearly shown that the case below (the now
infamous misconfigured network) is the only possible scenario where
a distinction needs to be made between a workgroup and a server.
The issue is confused by trying to use a single general design as in
the above example.  It is important to note that the following two
syntaxes are mutually exclusive:


Simo Sorce wrote:
> the proposed workgroup#server syntax would resolve also this case forcing
> "workgroup" to be the workgroup into which you want to find a server and
> not the misconfigured servername.

This is true, but is the _only_ use of such a differentiation.  So, what
do we sacrifice for this?  A lot.  Using "#" would be the one exception
to the RFC in the whole URI design.  Are you willing to give up on RFC
compliance in order to accommodate a workaround for a broken network?

If you ask me, the price is too high.  Blame a bad network and move on.

	- Kevin Colby
	  kevinc at

More information about the samba-technical mailing list