Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - snoopy1337

Pages: [1]
1
German / Re: Zwei Zentyals DC's + HTTP Proxy + SSO
« on: November 07, 2014, 02:21:36 pm »
Tjaaaaa.... mal wieder ein typischer Fall von... WTF...

Habe jetzt vom zweiten Zentyal "Com" noch mal alles an Zentyal Komponenten runter geworfen und Schritt für Schritt die nötigen Komponenten neu installiert und konfiguriert. Und siehe da... jetzt klappt alles mit dem HTTP Proxy auf "Com"....  ???


2
German / [SOLVED] Zwei Zentyals DC's + HTTP Proxy + SSO
« on: November 07, 2014, 12:46:26 pm »
Hey zusammen,

habe gerade folgendes Problem:

Situation:
-> Zwei frisch installierte Zentyal 3.3 Server (ab 3.4 gibts kein Zarafa mehr, daher 3.3), alle Updates installiert
-> Der erste "Master" ist Domain Controller
-> Der zweite "Com" ist zusätzlicher Domain Controller, mit Erstem verbunden, Benutzer und Gruppen werden korrekt repliziert
-> HTTP Proxy läuft auf dem zweiten "Com", SSO ist aktiviert
-> Ein frisch installiertes Windows 7 Pro, der Domäne hinzugefügt, angemeldet als einfacher Benutzer, der HTTP Proxy verwenden darf

Problem:
-> Wird im Windows 7 Internet Explorer der zweite Zentyal "Com" als Proxy eingetragen, schlägt die Kerberos Authentifizierung fehl, es erscheint ein Anmeldedialog im IE.

Bisherige Tests:
-> SSO auf "Com" deaktiviert, im IE erscheint richtigerweise das Anmeldefenster. Benutzerdaten werden akzeptiert, der Proxy läßt durch.
-> HTTP Proxy auf ersten Zentyal "Master" installiert, SSO aktiviert, "Master" als Proxy im Windows 7 IE eingetragen: Alles funktioniert wie es soll, kein Anmeldedialog, Proxy läßt durch

Logs:
"Com" /var/log/squid3/cache.log der fehlgeschlagenen Authentifizierung:
Code: [Select]
2014/11/07 11:39:41| squid_kerb_auth: ERROR: gss_accept_sec_context() failed: Unspecified GSS failure.  Minor code may provide more information.
2014/11/07 11:39:41| authenticateNegotiateHandleReply: Error validating user via Negotiate. Error returned 'BH gss_accept_sec_context() failed: Unspecified GSS failure.  Minor code may provide more information. '

"Master" /var/log/squid3/cache.log der erfolgreichen Authentifizierung:
Code: [Select]
2014/11/07 11:34:23| squid_kerb_auth: INFO: User testuser@TEST.LAN authenticated
Hat jmd. ne Idee, wo das Problem auf "Com" sein könnte?

3
1) Yes, Zarafa is dropped completely
2) No, as of 3.4 there is no option to choose Zarafa anymore.
Sad to hear that, as Zarafa - IMHO - is a very good and stable Groupware Solution, esp. in conjunction with z-push it works like a charm.

3) _Theoreticly_ OpenChange has more features than Zarafa and there is no extra license fee for outlook connectors since OpenChange natively supports the MAPI protocol.
As u said... theoreticaly... I took a look at OpenChange (WebMail) in Zentyal 3.5 and my first thought was: What a huge Back-Step!

4) We would love to see a documented migration path for Zarafa to OpenChange. I hope the devs in Zaragoza have the time to make a solid howto and/or migration script for this.
Thats annoying... this would be a big show stopper for many Zentyal Users in Upgrading / Migrating I think. I couldn't imagine that there are just a few users having Zarafa running in Zentyal. And if there is even no migration path...

IMO the biggest catch is that openchange just isn't stable yet. Although they are working very hard on OpenChange development, I really think it is too soon to drop Zarafa, but that's just my opinion.

I'm absolutely with u in saying that it is much too early to completely replace Zarafa with OpenChange; just installed/tested Zentyal 3.5 for a few minutes and came accross several Bugs (ActiveSync doesn't seem to work, IMAP Login with non-Outlook doesn't work) and created some tickets.

What about all those who don't need the Outlook/MAPI stuff but just a Groupware at all and use completely free software? I think, having the choose in using Zarafa or OpenChange should be the better way as Zarafa (esp. with Z-Push) in Zentyal worked just fine and stable for several years now.

So I think, 3.3 will be the last Zentyal I use and I will completely switch to another SBS Solution like ClearOS...
There the Zarafa Community Edition "App" costs 10$ but that could be good invested capital I hope. At a first glance, this System seems to be more stable at all...

4
Hi everybody,

just read about the upcoming Zentyal 3.5 based on 14.04 LTS.

A few months ago I tried out Zentyal 3.4 (13.10) and noticed the missing of Zarafa. I could understand that 3.4 couldn't include Zarafa as this only is compatible with Ubuntus LTS Versions. So I hoped Zarafa will be back with the next Zentyal which is based on the next LTS - Ubuntu.

Now I read that 3.5 will drop Zarafa, too and include OpenChange. Seriously??

I'm running several Small Business Sites with Zentyal + Zarafa, the most with Zentyal 3.3 .

This leads me to these questions:

1) Is Zarafa really completely dropped from Zentyal and will never come back?
2) Or could one choose between Zarafa and OpenChange?
3) If there is no choose: Does OpenChange have the same features as Zarafa?
4) If there is no choose: Will there be a "How - To Migrate Zarafa Mailboxes/Calendars/Contacts/Users a.s.o. to OpenChange?"

I'm really not lucky with these trends and I seriously think about completely dropping Zentyal as it drops (for me) one of the best modules...

Greetings


5
Hi everybody,

I have a Zentyal installation which currently uses the standard Zentyal Mail Server (dovecot), users connect to it via Thunderbird / IMAP. Now I want to install Zentyals groupware module. If I understood correctly, just new arriving mails are then delivered to Zarafa, right? What about all the existing old mails in dovecot? How could I migrate them to Zarafa on the same server?

Thx a lot for any hint!
Snoopy

6
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 17, 2013, 11:29:27 pm »
yea, I'm able to query with getfacl and set acl's with setfacl, so the FS is indeed mounted acl - capable...

This should become a new bug - ticket, right?

7
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 13, 2013, 12:30:38 pm »
I think you'r right.. but .. y? The option "acl" is given, as you can see... is ntfs-3g in zentyal not compiled with acl support?!

8
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:35:19 pm »
oh... yeah, sure     ::)

Code: [Select]
/dev/sdi1 on /media/ext type fuseblk (rw,nosuid,nodev,allow_other,blksize=4096)
root@majestix:/media#

9
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:29:13 pm »
OK, here it is ;)

Code: [Select]
root@server:/media# mount -o acl /dev/sdi1 /media/ext/
Using default user mapping
root@server:/media#

10
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 12, 2013, 09:05:46 pm »
no, I unmounted it, and mounted it manually the usual way:

mount -o acl /dev/<device> /media/ext

but the web frontend still says, it was mounted without the ACL option.

This FS even is not worth thinking about rights, as everyone in the network should be able to read and write on it...

In the meantime I managed to work around the issue by using Zentyal's config hooks to add a few basic - share - lines to smb.conf.
But I would be interested in a solution for the web frontend anyway...

11
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 12, 2013, 08:21:10 pm »
So the real problem isn't the "acl" option but the missing quota thing?

So it is not possible to create a share of a NTFS Filesystem via Zentyal's Web Frontend?
But I think it's not a good idea to edit the samba conf file manually, isn't it?

12
Installation and Upgrades / Share NTFS partitions
« on: December 12, 2013, 07:53:16 pm »
Hi everybody,

I have an external USB HardDisk which has an NTFS filesystem. This is mounted under /media/ext which I now want to share via Samba in Zentyal 3.2.

When I try to add the new share via the Web Interface I get the Message:

"The mount point '/media/ext' must be mounted with 'acl' option. This is required for permissions to work properly."

I then mounted the filesystem with "-o acl", but the message still remains....Any hint?

Thx in advance
T0mcat

13
Are there any news about this? I'm having the same issue...

Pages: [1]