[Samba] BUG report: smbclient

[mark]

On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 17:40:29 -0600 (CST)
"Gerald (Jerry) Carter" <jerry at samba.org> wrote:

> > [root at server root]# smbclient -M condor
> > added interface ip=192.168.0.1 bcast=192.168.0.255
> > nmask=255.255.255.0 Cannot resolve name condor#0x3
> 
> In this case, smbclient has to resolve the netbios name 
> (not DNS name) of the messenger service.  This is not a bug.
> If you correct the problems with your netbuios name resolution, 
> this will work fine.
> 
I have this problem, too.  I seem to have an otherwise working wins
server

smbclient -L //lespaul
added interface ip=192.168.0.56 bcast=192.168.0.255
nmask=255.255.255.0 Got a positive name query response from
192.168.0.13 ( 192.168.0.62 )

but with smbclient -M I get 

echo "hello" |smbclient -M lespaul
added interface ip=192.168.0.56 bcast=192.168.0.255
nmask=255.255.255.0 Cannot resolve name lespaul#0x3


It does seem to be winxp related as in the following

>smbclient -M strider
added interface ip=192.168.0.56 bcast=192.168.0.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
Got a positive name query response from 192.168.0.13 ( 192.168.0.57 )
Connected. Type your message, ending it with a Control-D
sent 0 bytes

> smbclient -M lespaul
added interface ip=192.168.0.56 bcast=192.168.0.255 nmask=255.255.255.0
Cannot resolve name lespaul#0x3

lespaul is winxp and strider is winme.

And if I try to give an explicit ip address:

> smbclient -M LESPAUL -I 192.168.0.62
added interface ip=192.168.0.56 bcast=192.168.0.255
nmask=255.255.255.0 session request failed

> ping 192.168.0.62
PING 192.168.0.62 (192.168.0.62): 56 octets data
64 octets from 192.168.0.62: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=3.0 ms
64 octets from 192.168.0.62: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=3.9 ms

--- 192.168.0.62 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 2 packets received, 0% packet loss
round-trip min/avg/max = 3.0/3.4/3.9 ms

So how do I need to fix my wins server?  Obviously I'm just looking for
things I should try first.  Not for anyone to use their well-worn
crystal balls to spot a flaw in my smb.conf.  Which I haven't
attached.  Or to figure out I've got a bad nic or cable.  But if anyone
has a NEW crystal ball and can tell me it's a nic or cable, well THAT
would be cool...

mark