Re: [Samba] what's on port 139

2003-02-24 Thread Marian Mlcoch, Ing
Reply to list firewall setings try run ipchains -L -n Bye. - Original Message - From: Andrew Greenhill [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:07 AM Subject: [Samba] what's on port 139 Having trouble with Samba. The config file passes the test

Re: [Samba] what's on port 139

2003-02-23 Thread Bradley W. Langhorst
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 05:07, Andrew Greenhill wrote: Having trouble with Samba. The config file passes the test (testparm) The Server seems to be upa and running fine (smbclient -L localhost) But can't seem to connect to it from other computers (running 2000 or 98) They were able to connect

Re: [Samba] what's on port 139

2003-02-23 Thread Joel Hammer
What do you see with : netstat -anp | grep mbd Joel Having trouble with Samba. The config file passes the test (testparm) The Server seems to be upa and running fine (smbclient -L localhost) But can't seem to connect to it from other computers (running 2000 or 98) They were able to connect

Re: [Samba] what's on port 139

2003-02-23 Thread Joel Hammer
Firewall issue? Joel On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 10:07:24AM +, Andrew Greenhill wrote: Having trouble with Samba. The config file passes the test (testparm) The Server seems to be upa and running fine (smbclient -L localhost) But can't seem to connect to it from other computers (running 2000

Re: [Samba] what's on port 139

2003-02-23 Thread Joel Hammer
Yes, this looks ok. Firewall issue? Joel On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 11:39:54AM +, Andrew Greenhill wrote: I get: tcp 0 0 0.0.0.0:139 0.0.0.0:* LISTEN 28032/smbd udp 0 0 192.168.2.31:137 0.0.0.0:* 28034/nmbd upd 0 0 0.0.0.0:137 0.0.0.0:* 28034/nmbd upd 0 0 192.168.2.31:138

Re: [Samba] what's on port 139

2003-02-23 Thread Bradley W. Langhorst
On Mon, 2003-02-24 at 06:44, Andrew Greenhill wrote: Looked up in the nmbd.log and it tries to become the domain master for subnet 192.168.2.31 (we wanted it to be the domain master for 192.168.2.0) Would this be a problem? unless you're using an unusual subnet mask these are on the same