Nyxtorm

Interesting, thank you for your analysis! 😀 For my part, I won't be using the "hide unreadable" option, which goes beyond my initial request, which was to hide shares, and could slow down some folder listing:

Hello, Thank you for your help, which helped me to do exactly what I wanted. However, what is added in Settings => SMB =>SMB Extras is put to the [global] part of Samba config. So in practice, the "hide unreadable = Yes" part shouldn't be there, because it is, if I'm not being silly, normally specific to shares(?), in the [share_name] part. The "access based share enum = Yes" parameter is sufficient for the same result.

Hello, Today we have 3 possible choices for SMB exports privacy on Unraid: Yes / Yes (hidden) / No I have a little problem with "Yes" because it is too permissive and with "Yes (hidden)" which is too restrictive. - With "yes" : it is possible to list all available shares, even when authenticating with "guest" or "anonymous" on \\UNRAID_HOST\ - With "yes (hidden)": In this mode, very well the share is hidden for guest/anonymous. However, even if I authenticate with a "real" user, they are hidden of course. I use Solid Explorer on mobile, I would like to have a single shortcut to \\UNRAID_HOST\ to be able to list my shares to which I have at least read access. In "Yes (hidden)" mode I have to create a shortcut for each share. It quickly becomes a mess with many shares. It would be nice to have : * Yes -> The current behavior : export for all including guest/anonymous and Unraid users with or without access rights * Yes (hidden) -> The current behavior, hidden for all * Unraid authentication -> Listed only in case it's a unraid user, with a sub-option "Hide share if Unraid user doesn't have read rights on it". * No -> Current behavior I agree that this is not a very important feature, but more of a comfort feature where there is a lot of shares and privacy is best. Sorry for my English,