On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 04:59:42PM +0000, John H Terpstra wrote: > On Thu, 28 Nov 2002, mlh wrote: > > > > > Just so that it gets into the archives for > > future googlers: > > > > If you get 'system error 64' on a windows xp > > machine trying to connect to samba, then > > make sure you have nothing running on port 445. > > > > I had an apache ssl instance running on that port. > > Really? The well known port for that is 443.
Yeah, I know. I have a whole bunch of apache servers, of potentially different versions, hence different ports. (rather than use virtual servers) The first uses 80+443, the second 81+444, the third ... well you can guess :-) > > Doh! Had to scratch my head a bit over it. > > > > XP doesn't actually need anything to be on 445, > > it just gets confused and gives up if there is. > > Port 445 is the port Win2K and WinXP use for netbiosless SMB. > It is the correct well known TCP port that Microsoft have registered for > the purpose. Does any present or future Samba plan to use it too? (I presume the answer is yes for future, but I think no for the present.?) Matt PS. I may go to virtual ips for my multiple apaches but that's enough on apache for this list. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
