A few swat comments. was:Re: [Samba] Does the SWAT tool come
with the Red Hat 8.0 distribution?
John H Terpstra
jht at samba.org
Tue Mar 11 07:06:41 GMT 2003
On Tue, 11 Mar 2003, mark wrote:
> Since we seem to be discussing the merits of swat, I'll add my two
> I don't use swat either, but I did try it and the things about it that I
> think could be improved are:
> 1. Backup the original smb.conf (if any). While it could be said that
> that is the users job, I was more than slightly irritated that my
> original smb.conf was gone after making changes using swat. I wouldn't
> think that that would be too hard to implement and the advantage is that
> even if a diff between the original and the new smb.conf weren't
> recognizable, a diff with the output of testparm from the old and new
> would be.
I like this suggestion. Could you specify your dream wishes more clearly
ie: I run SWAT and write the back-up file. Now I run it again and
overwrite the backup file again? Where is the gain then? Do I only back it
up if it does not exist? Then what about subsequent changes I make?
Should it back it up to a file with time and date extensions? If so, homw
many backups should I keep?
Your suggestion perplexees me. I want some consensus on this before I
change anything here.
> 2. Don't have swat bind itself to every available IP address by default.
> That just scares me. I'd much rather have something bind to localhost
> only to start out with and then let me change it if I needed to. I
> understand that this would result in quite a few questions like, "Why
> can't I access swat?", but I still think it's better practice.
But by default, it should be blocked by TCP Wrappers from anything except
127.0.0.1. Where is the problem?
> 3. The 901 port just sucks. Pick a cool one like 22 or 25 or 110.
> Well, 110 isn't so cool, but 25, wowza!
> ps. comment 3. was a joke. I couldn't handle only having two comments.
Now here we agree! Yes!
- John T.
John H Terpstra
Email: jht at samba.org
More information about the samba