[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       samba-cvs
Subject:    Re: svn commit: samba r21991 - in branches/SAMBA_3_0/source:
From:       Jeremy Allison <jra () samba ! org>
Date:       2007-03-29 17:35:55
Message-ID: 20070329173555.GI4738 () samba1
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2007 at 10:23:57AM -0700, James Peach wrote:
> 
> Why is having the ability to do this a good thing? If a client wants  
> to do unencrypted traffic it can always set up a new session.

Yes, but the thing that convinced me was the ability
to have the following :

[share_secure]
	encryption = mandatory
	path = /xxxx

[share_unsecure]
	encryption = auto (or "no")
	path = /yyy

If we want the server to be able to make
encryption mandatory and we don't allow
it per share then we disallow that server
from serving any unencrypted (currently
Windows) clients.

People probably want the ability to
serve both encrypted and non encrypted
shares from the saem server.

Currently the point is moot as the
implmentation only supported encryption
context zero - ie. encrypt everything.

But the goal is not to contrain the
design.

Jeremy.
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]