Search squid archive

Re: freebsd and squid - samba 2 or 3?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: Derrick MacPherson <dmacpherson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: freebsd and squid - samba 2 or 3?
From: Henrik Nordstrom <hno@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2005 13:44:14 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: squid <squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1123099411.19170.53.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mailing-list: contact squid-users-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
References: <1123099411.19170.53.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005, Derrick MacPherson wrote:

Am I better of with samba 2 or 3?

Defenitely Samba-3. Samba-2 is considered end-of-life by the Sambadevelopers and no longer maintained, not even security fixes.


Regards
Henrik

Follow-Ups:
- Re: freebsd and squid - samba 2 or 3?
  - From: Derrick MacPherson

References:
- freebsd and squid - samba 2 or 3?
  - From: Derrick MacPherson

Prev by Date: Re: NTLM Authentication
Next by Date: RE: No Autologin, 407 Proxy Authentication Required
Previous by thread: freebsd and squid - samba 2 or 3?
Next by thread: Re: freebsd and squid - samba 2 or 3?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux Audio Users] [Samba] [Big List of Linux Books] [Linux USB] [Yosemite News]

Powered by Linux