Request for clarification regarding the dialect used in CIFS and SMBFS.

[Tayade, Nilesh]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher R. Hertel [mailto:crh at ubiqx.mn.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 7:20 PM
> To: Tayade, Nilesh
> Cc: samba-technical at lists.samba.org
> Subject: Re: Request for clarification regarding the dialect used in
> CIFS and SMBFS.
> 
> Nilesh,
> 
> Regarding the "Samba" dialect, my book says: "It doesn't appear to be
> used
> any more (if, indeed, it ever was)."
> 
> I wrote that book, and much of the protocol specification published by
> Microsoft.  There is no "Samba" dialect.  It's just a name added to the
> list
> of dialects.  It is never "selected" as the dialect to use by any
> server.
> 
> Which SMBFS are you using?  The old (outdated and deprecated) Linux
> version
> or the BSD version or some other version?  I believe that the "Samba"
> name
> may have been removed from the BSD SMBFS client.

Thanks for the response Chris. Yes, I guess I was looking at the old traces files.
I have tried it on recent Linux kernel 2.6.36 and I don't see it listed anymore. :)

> 
> Chris -)-----
> 
> nilesh wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I am looking at the packets captured for both SMBFS and CIFS. Also
> > referred http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html#SMB.6
> >
> > As per the document, when we use SMBFS it should use the SAMBA
> dialect.
> > But I looked at the packet traces and in both the cases (SMBFS and
> > CIFS), it uses "NT LM 0.12". Could someone please clarify why it
> shows
> > this behaviour? Isn't it supposed to use SAMBA in case of SMBFS?
> >
> >
> > P.S. Please copy me in the reply, as I am not subscribed to the list.
> >
> 

--
Thanks,
Nilesh