Deprecate the 'socket address' parameter and remove special handling?

David Collier-Brown davec-b at
Wed Jul 25 10:05:16 MDT 2012

On 07/25/2012 10:47 AM, simo wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-25 at 12:06 +1000, Dewayne Geraghty wrote: 
>> I'm all for increasing simplicity, but isn't the purpose of "socket
>> address=x.y.z.t" to enable samba to respond/listen to a specific address,
>> particularly where there are many aliases on an interface. And the
>> "interface=" statement to specify which of the interfaces, or ip/masks that
>> a particular samba instance will service?
>> Currently we run authentication services (heimdal/openldap) in one virtual
>> machine(vm), and samba3 in another. I plan to insert samba4 onto the
>> authentication server (no fileservices) and retain the samba3 server, and
>> both running on the same physical machine. I'm concerned, with the removal
>> of "socket address", will this approach be inhibited?
> Dewayne,
> as pointed out in the previous emails, you can put ip address in the
> 'interfaces' parameter, and then use 'bind interfaces only = yes' to
> limit samba to talk on those addresses only.
> socket address is simply redundant and can be implemented by the above
> options which is why we want to remove it.
> Simo.

And one's config parser can, in principle, then say
printf("Sorry, that's obsolete, use interfaces=%s, and bind interfaces
only = yes to gain the same functionality\n", ip)


David Collier-Brown,         | Always do right. This will gratify
System Programmer and Author | some people and astonish the rest
davecb at           |                      -- Mark Twain
(416) 223-8968

More information about the samba-technical mailing list