request to remove security=share

[simo]

On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 23:31 +0100, Volker Lendecke wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 02:21:17PM -0500, simo wrote:
> > Why don't just add a read only password and a read write password ?
> > We already have the username option, we just need to change it to be
> > the name of the user we are going to access the share with in the
> > security=share case.
> 
> As I said in my other mail: I don't think putting the
> passwords into secrets.tdb is particularly good, we would
> have to create yet another mechanism for editing passwords
> etc. I'm also thinking about clustered scenarios. We already
> have the pain that the interdomain trust account passwords
> are not in passdb. Why should we put more information into
> secrets.tdb when we have a flexible mechanism around?

Personally I'd prefer to remove completely the security=share option
than inventing yet another mechanism that will be unfamiliar to all
admins. We either move to a model close to what most admins may expect
and understand or just remove the option as we can "simulate" it by just
using the guest account and security=user as Jerry suggested.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce
Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer
email: idra at samba.org
http://samba.org