Local group registration

Dieter Rothacker Didi at ThePentagon.com
Thu Oct 9 15:08:12 GMT 1997

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 1997, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> > Janne wrote:
> >
> > > Hmmm... Microsoft's document explains [1E] as Browser Service Elections.
> > >
> > > IMHO, e.g. Win95 does not register group [1E] after setting it to not
> > > take part in maintaining browse lists. (There's an option for this in
> > > the registry)
> >
> > Ok - I can stop nmbd registering WORKGROUP<1e> if local
> > master is set to none (a quick fix in namedbsubnet.c
> > should do it) - the question is, what does this buy us ?
> not a lot.  reduction in work done by nmbd, as it won't be listening on
> that NetBIOS name.
> > Janne, Luke - do you know what bug we have that this
> > would fix ?
> we don't have a bug, as such.  more a "blurring" of the roles of
> "potential master browser" and "non-master browser".
> it's not documented properly either.
> janne, can i ask you if you could do a netstat -a m/c_name on one of
> those machines where the registry has been edited to _not_ ever become a
> local master?
> i need to know if WORKGROUP<1e> is registered or not on that machine.

I think you want a "nbtstat -a m/c_name", right ?

If I disable "browse list" in the properties of "File and Printer
sharing for MS Network", the Win95 box still registers WORKGROUP<1e>.
Can somebody tell me where the above mentioned registry setting is
located ?

BTW, I read that I should not use samba 1.9.16 and 1.9.17 together, but
is it a known bug, that a 1.9.16 client cannot register at an 1.9.17
WINS server (responded "WINS server did not respond to name reg.") ?
Dieter Rothacker, Student of computer science

TMTOWTDI, and the other ones are always better !

More information about the samba mailing list