From: Loki Harfagr on
Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:24:04 +0100, goarilla(a)work did cat :

> Loki Harfagr wrote:
>> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:40:33 +0000, goarilla did cat :
>>
>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:33:02 +0000, Loki Harfagr wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:09:20 -0500, Michael Black did cat :
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Loki Harfagr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:41:00 +0100, Helmut Hullen did cat :
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> to overwrite the restrictions of shadow-4.0.3-i486-18.txz You may
>>>>>>> use it especially in the neighbourhood of "samba". "Ubuntu" - an
>>>>>>> African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
>>>>>> incidentally these two sentences make two very good points for
>>>>>> *not* "overwriting the 'enforcements' in shadow-4.0.3" ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Didn't this very topic come up within the past few months? Maybe it
>>>>> was in one of the other Linux newsgroups, but it was all hashed out
>>>>> then.
>>>> Oh yes, it was this very group and, in terse almost (yes almost)
>>>> trollish condensed article, the punch end line was definitely that
>>>> some folks should use Ubuntu and others may prefer a sane system ;-)
>>> there are other reasons to "upgrade" shadow sha[0-9]+ password hashes
>>> instead of md5 or crypt.
>>
>> That one would be a much better reason to upgrade the shadow, maybe
>> Robby would now tell wherabouts they are in the discussion around that
>> integration, (PAM issues or what?)
>>
>> Anyway back to the OQ, I certainly wouldn't addup mixed case logins
>> just because a recent shadow would allow it ;-)
>
> it's not on purpose it's just that windows is case insensitive but case
> preservative, which can cause trouble when samba is used as a PDC.

Correct but that brings the question why would I break a sane system to
make a workaround for another system bug?-)
Have you filed a bug to Microsoft bug report board? Or mailed
your users to also file the bug and meanwhile either repair their
namespace scheme and/or change for a sane system?-)
From: goarilla on
Loki Harfagr wrote:
> Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:24:04 +0100, goarilla(a)work did cat :
>
>> Loki Harfagr wrote:
>>> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 12:40:33 +0000, goarilla did cat :
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:33:02 +0000, Loki Harfagr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:09:20 -0500, Michael Black did cat :
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Loki Harfagr wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:41:00 +0100, Helmut Hullen did cat :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> to overwrite the restrictions of shadow-4.0.3-i486-18.txz You may
>>>>>>>> use it especially in the neighbourhood of "samba". "Ubuntu" - an
>>>>>>>> African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
>>>>>>> incidentally these two sentences make two very good points for
>>>>>>> *not* "overwriting the 'enforcements' in shadow-4.0.3" ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't this very topic come up within the past few months? Maybe it
>>>>>> was in one of the other Linux newsgroups, but it was all hashed out
>>>>>> then.
>>>>> Oh yes, it was this very group and, in terse almost (yes almost)
>>>>> trollish condensed article, the punch end line was definitely that
>>>>> some folks should use Ubuntu and others may prefer a sane system ;-)
>>>> there are other reasons to "upgrade" shadow sha[0-9]+ password hashes
>>>> instead of md5 or crypt.
>>> That one would be a much better reason to upgrade the shadow, maybe
>>> Robby would now tell wherabouts they are in the discussion around that
>>> integration, (PAM issues or what?)
>>>
>>> Anyway back to the OQ, I certainly wouldn't addup mixed case logins
>>> just because a recent shadow would allow it ;-)
>> it's not on purpose it's just that windows is case insensitive but case
>> preservative, which can cause trouble when samba is used as a PDC.
>
> Correct but that brings the question why would I break a sane system to
> make a workaround for another system bug?-)
> Have you filed a bug to Microsoft bug report board? Or mailed
> your users to also file the bug

that never works with redmond and we all know it