On Fri, 29 Nov 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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.?)
Samba already uses port 445. Has done for a while. Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to use well known ports (1-1024) randomly. See smb.h in the samba source code. - John T. -- John H Terpstra Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba
