Difference between samba 2.0.0beta4 and NT4.0 ?

Andrej Borsenkow borsenkow.msk at sni.de
Wed Dec 16 15:11:02 GMT 1998

> The problem was a 'browseable = no' on my samba-share \\ultra305\tmp.
[ ...snip...]
> As far as I understood windoze creates the lnk-file and causes
> the problem.
> If the shortcut uses a driveletter, then Windoze creates a
> correct lnk-file,
> if the shortcut uses a UNC-name, it doesn't.

Most probably, it tries to verify the destination, fails (because it doesn't
see share) and silently creates shorctcut with garbage in it instead of
telling you there was a problem. Not that I am much surprised :-)

> Can't samba catch this (I don't think so) ?

'course not. Either you can browse or not.

> I dont't know NT good enough, can you do a browseable=no on NT also ? What
> happened then ?

Hmm ... Probably, if you can deny anonymous access to IPC$ share ... may be.
But that not the same. You will get error connecting to server - and here
you simply don't see share without any errors.


More information about the samba mailing list