Hello,

Have configured CIFS many times before, but I'm administering a new
server that I can't get it to work on. NetWare 6.5 SP5 w/ CPR
server.exe. It looks like when CIFS starts it's pulling a
configuration from...somewhere. I can configure it my to heart's
content in iManager, but the new configuration never takes. The
configuration I give it shows up in ConsoleOne, so I know it's being
saved by eDirectory. I've wiped out the CIFS.cfg file and created a
blank new one.

Anyone know where else it might be pulling it from?

Thanks.

Jason

AFPTCP has always supported encrypted passwords. CLEARTEXT was alwas just
an option which was not enabled by default.
More specifically, AFPTCP supports the Random Number Exchange and Two-Way
Random Number Exchange UAMs for secure authentication.

Roland Flessner wrote:

That sounds like your NMAS configuration is still broken.
You might try running SDIDIAG.NLM and verify that your tree keys are OK:
http://www.novell.com/support/search.do?cmd=displayKC&docType=kc&externalId=3455...

Also, try running the NMAS configuration utility:
nmasinst -m

Maybe you start by explaining what exact issues you are seeing.
Also, please indicate what SP level your servers are on and what kind of
authentication you are using (cleartext, simple password or universal
password).

roberti wrote:

It's application specific behaviour. Some programs like MS Word don't
simply open a file, write to it and close it. Rather they try writing to a
temp file and renaming that file after they finished. That's why saving or
modifying files from such an application in an environment with limited
rights often fails.

Well, based on your other posts, it seems that you got the connectivity
working. I would just like to comment ont he following:

This document is not related to using your NetWare server as file server.
Rather it refers to the case where eDirectory is the authority for
managing user accounts. That means that if you follow the documentation,
you can make NetWare users capable of using a MAC workstation without
being locally defined on the workstation.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-= harassment at work. -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Once I stopped watching television. and listening to the radio at the end of
1990, "they" had to. find other ways of committing abuses. So they took what
must be for them a tried and tested route; they get at you. by subversion of
those around. you. Since they wouldn't be able to do that with my family or
friends, that meant. getting at people in the workplace to be their
mouthpieces and do. their dirty work for them.

They supplied my. employers in Oxford with details from what was going on in
my private life, and what I and other. people had said at my home and
accommodation. in Oxford. So people at work repeated verbatim...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=. why the security services? -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

You may. ask, why do I think the "they" referred to are the security
services?. Is there any evidence that there is a single source, as opposed
to a. loosely based "whispering campaign" amongst many people? Even if there
is a single source, is there any. evidence that "they" are professional
"buggers" as opposed to amateurs,. or perhaps people working for a privately
funded. organization?

a) As. to the question of a single source versus something more fragmented;
it. is quite obvious that there is a single source from the way the campaign
has been carried out. Since. things have been repeated verbatim which were
said in my home, there must be one group which does the watching. and
listening. Since on several. occasions (mainly during travel) people have
been planted in close proximity. and rehearsed in what they were to say, it
follows that someone must have done the planning for that, and again. a
single source. is indicated.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
-=. MI5: methods and tactics -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

They deliberately set out to harass in a. way that would resemble the
symptoms of schizophrenia, so that any. report of the harassment would be
taken as indicating mental illness and. "treated" accordingly. They never
show their own. faces; they only work through proxies, in the media, among
the public, and by manipulating people in the. workplace. Since they do not
declare their identity. there is no evidence to initiate legal action
against the security services or anyone else. The only people. you can
prosecute are. the proxies and they will deny knowledge of any conspiracy.

By repeatedly humiliating and. abusing the victim, they induced mental
illness. This is the worst form of. human rights violation: making any
statement of the harassment appear to be symptomatic of the. illness which
they cause through the harassment. That this can happen, and. people collude
by silence, is absolutely. horrifying.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= my response. to the harassment -=
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

My first. reaction in 1990/91 was to assume that if I broke contact then
they. would not be able to follow and would lose interest. So I did the
things that have been suggested by other people; I sold my. television,
stopped listening to. the radio and tried to withdraw away from the sources
of abuse as much as. possible. I reasoned that they must have more important
things to deal with. and that normal people would simply leave me alone if
it were made difficult for them to. continue their harassment.

I reckoned without. the sheer vindictiveness of the abusers. They did not
let up but instead "got to" people around me, mainly people at. work, to do
their dirty work for. them. I went to see my GP, who refused to believe what
he was being told, and refused to direct me on to anyone. who could be of
practical assistance. It was not until three years had passed that. the GP
admitted the matter. was outside his competence and suggested going to the
police.