A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old October 22nd 18, 09:37 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On 22 Oct 2018 17:21:58 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Well, as 'Arlen' posted, 'net use' *does* work with a WebDAV server
and - in this context - WebDAV does offer similar functionality as FTP.

So for WebDAV, 'net use' *is* "a way to access a drive" and hence
*is* "something to support internet protocols".

The whole point is that 'net use' *does* offer WebDAV compatibility/
functionality, but for some reason does *not* offer FTP compatibility/
functionality. That might make sense to Microsoft, but it doesn't make
any sense to normal people, especially since FTP is older than WebDAV.


Hi Frank Slootweg,
I just read this, and, I have to say, THANK YOU FOR EXISTING!
You're the _only_ one who _comprehends_ the problem set.

FTP (X drive: http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4233679dir018.jpg
WebDAV (X drive: http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8624465dir019.jpg

Sure, it's complex: But nobody but you and me seem to comprehend it.
Thank you for that summary above (which is better than I could write!).

I've concluded my tests, for the most part, where I _agree_ that "net use"
works _differently_ for WebDav than for FTP. It just does. Why? Hell if I
know. But it clearly does work differently.

What I wish I understood better is why Windows treats them differently,
and, more importantly, why I can almost perfectly treat the WebDav share as
an X: drive, even though it doesn't literally show up as a "removable
drive" as shown in this screenshot I posted a few days ago when I started
this quest.
o "net use" http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8605173dir05.jpg

Notice, by way of contrast, that FTP shares do show up as literally a
"removable drive".
o DirectNetDrive http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6340420dir012.jpg
o NetDrive v1.3.2.0 http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1383190dir014.jpg

That the WebDav "X:" is "slightly" different than the FTP "X:" drive is
what confuses me because I don't understand why Windows is "almost"
treating both as a "removable drive", but not completely doing so for the
WebDav as much as it's treating FTP shares as a bona-fide removable drive.
o FTP shares as a "removable drive" works perfectly!
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=7002518dir020.jpg
o WebDAV shares as a "removable drive" almost works perfectly
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8624465dir019.jpg

Not knowing what is different in Windows - which makes FTP "drive letter
X:" show up in the "removable drive" section, but the "WebDAV drive letter
X:" shows up in the network location section - and yet - I can run DOS
commands on both (but slightly differently).

Does anyone know why the X: drive letter is treated differently by Windows
for FTP shares (perfectly) versus for WebDAV shares (slightly less
perfectly)?
Ads
  #17  
Old October 22nd 18, 09:44 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:43:42 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

Its not that I think that he doesn't look into stuff, but that he expects
others to name the programs that will solve his problems.


Hi Rudy,

In case you forgot, this is Usenet.

We ask Windows & Android _experts_ to help us answer our questions that
don't have ready-made answers that can simply be found by googling.

For example...

Here's a screenshot each showing why I'm confused that the (X drive for
WebDav is treated slightly differently than the (X drive for FTP by
Windows:

FTP (X drive: http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=4233679dir018.jpg
WebDAV (X drive: http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8624465dir019.jpg

It turns out that Windows (with the freeware, of course, that mounted the
FTP share as the X: drive) handles FTP "slightly better" than Windows
handled the WebDAV share (using only native "net use" of course).

They both act like an "X:" drive to the DOS command line, and both can
"Open command window here", but only one shows up in the "removable drive"
section, while the other shows up in the "network location" section of the
Windows File Explorer.

I don't know Windows well enough to explain why that happens that way.
Do you?
  #18  
Old October 22nd 18, 10:07 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On 22 Oct 2018 13:51:21 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

1. 'Map network drive' and 'net use' can not handle FTP syntax, period.


To be clear to all, Frank and I are in complete agreement on _everything_
that Frank wrote in that post above.

Specifically, after much experimentation, this morning, I gave up on trying
to mount Android FTP shares over WiFi as a "removable drive" drive letter
using only native Windows "net use" commands.

Ironically, as Frank astutely noted, "net use" works great with WebDAV
shares under the exact same conditions (even down to my tests changing the
ports and login credentials).

I changed the login credentials and ports to match them as best I could,
and the results were astounding (to me).

WebDAV works:
o net use X: \\192.168.1.7@8000\DCIM\Camera /user:francis francis
FTP fails:
o net use X: \\192.168.1.7@8000\DCIM\Camera /user:francis francis

Why?
Hell if I know why.

Someone (like Rudy?) who understands Windows will have to explain why.
  #19  
Old October 22nd 18, 10:44 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 16:44:02 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

As such it cannot even be used
to do Arlens "every window command" with it.


While everything Frank said in this thread is correct, what's revealing is
that _everything Rudy Wieser said, is dead wrong.

And that is where his story ends.


I'm gonna be blunt with you Rudy Wieser.
You're too _stupid_ to even _comprehend_ what we're talking about.
Every post from you is dead wrong - and worse - adds no value.

Every one of your posts, Rudy Wiser, is _negative_ value.

If I wasn't clear enough for you Rudy, please let me know.

Unless he's willing to check out stuff like this he
https://www.ferrobackup.com/map-ftp-as-disk.html
... Which he isn't (which is a good, but limiting choice).


Yet again, Rudy is dead wrong since we covered this in gory detail so many
times in the past few days that it's amazing how fantastically stupid Rudy
Wieser shows himself to be.

Rudy ... the fact is that we _started_ ahead of you, and you can't keep up,
let alone catch up on even _comprehending_ what we're saying.

Yes, Rudy Wieser. You are _that_ stupid.
That you don't comprehend how stupid you are is the problem here.

There is only one other person on this newsgroup who has shown any
comprehension of the problem set and the potential solutions, where,
together, we helped each other.

For example, Frank suggested NetDrive, which worked for me to mount the FTP
shares as a bona-fide drive letter (even though I had DirectNetDrive
already working - it's always nice to have multiple solutions).

To pay Frank back the favor, I showed him (and everyone else) how to mount
the WebDAV shares using only native Windows - which only Frank seems to
appreciate the sheer beauty of when you compare what happens with FTP
shares under the same circumstances.

I'm trying to be clear with you Rudy Wieser.
Frank is smart enough to comprehend the complexities inhernet her.
You're not.

Everything you said, in fact, is/was (likely always will be) dead wrong.

If I wasn't clear enough with you Rudy, let me know.
a. You don't even comprehend the problem set, Rudy.
b. Everything you said was dead wrong, Rudy.
b. Then you complain we didn't test what we've tested ages ago

While I am likely only of average intelligence, you, Rudy, are so far below
the bell curve that it's shocking that nobody has informed you yet.

I consider _every_ post by you to be a complete waste of everyone's time.
Again ... if I'm not being clear with you Rudy ... let me know.
  #20  
Old October 22nd 18, 11:55 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On 22 Oct 2018 17:21:58 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

[1] AFAIR, he was actually the first to mention FTPUSE in these groups.
From: Jonas Schneider
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.and roid
Subject: What do you use to copy text files from Windows XP to Android over WiFi?
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2017 05:41:45 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID:


Frank is astute.

This is a post I wrote on how to use FTPuse with Windows XP long ago.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.mobile.android/OkDfuDN9fZU/GEHkDKzcAQAJ

For decades, I've _always_ been improving our cross-platform capabilities.
(One productive success was with Windows/SunOS/Mac using CAP/Samba/SMB.)

This is the relatively recent article Frank referred folks to: 3/20/2017
What do you use to copy text files from Windows XP to Android over WiFi?
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.mobile.android/OkDfuDN9fZU%5B1-25%5D

In those days, I was on WinXP & Android 4.3 - but it's amazing outside of
the fact that it's now Windows 10 and Android 7.0 that we've come a _huge_
way since then in terms of bilateral compatibility between Android &
Windows.

In fact, reading that thread was actually painful, since _every_ post turns
out to be dead wrong in many ways, if we compare what is said then to what
we'd say now (in terms of the huge improvement in cross-platform
capabilities).
=== begin a summary midway through the thread ===
With those criteria in mind, here are some of the solutions I tested:
1. CIFS methods (eg Folder Tag with CIFS plugin & Network Browser)
2. SMB methods (eg AndSMB & Astro & ES File Explorer & Total Commander)
3. FTP methods (eg PrimitiveFTP & FTP Server & WinSCP & FileZilla)
4. HTTP methods (eg Wifi Explorer & WiFi File Transfer)
5. Sync methods (eg MyPhoneExplorer & AirDroid)

RANKING OF ONLY THOSE SOLUTIONS THAT WORKED:
3. FTP methods (best, by far, for native support in Windows File Explorer)
4. HTTP methods (best for the clueless since it's so easy to use a browser)
5. Sync methods (best for those who want to sync & control the phone)

RANKINGS INCLUDING SOLUTIONS THAT SHOULD HAVE WORKED:
1. CIFS methods (Should be best for Windows native File Explorer support)
2. SMB methods (Should also work with Mac & Windows native file support)
3. FTP methods (best, by far, for native support in Windows File Explorer)
4. HTTP methods (best for the clueless since it's so easy to use a browser)
5. Sync methods (best for those who want to sync & control the phone)
=== end of that summary midway through the thread ===

Notice we wasted a _lot_ of time on SMB, which, obviously, if it would
work, would be fantastic - but it just won't work. Period.

And we wasted a lot of time on proprietary server:client solutions, all of
which were a total waste of effort. For example, a bunch of idiots said the
problem couldn't be solved without "paying for a solution", which is just
wrong in every way possible. (It's amazing when people are _that_ stupid.)

Basically only Frank & Paul added helpful technical insight to that thread.

Alas, Rudy Wieser (and nospam and about a score of other fools) just wasted
everyone's time, as usual, by (a) not ever comprehending the problem set,
and (b) by being literally dead wrong on everything they wrote.

Unfortunately, that Usenet thread, like this one, has 1 to 3 intelligent
respondents, and then about a dozen to a score of fools who just waste
everyone's time making technical progress difficult with their utter
childish drivel (read the thread to see what I mean).

The good news is that we have made _tremendous_ progress since then.

At this point, we have a bunch of very good solutions that work nearly
flawlessly, over USB & WiFI, with and without freeware additions.
  #21  
Old October 23rd 18, 01:37 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On 22 Oct 2018 17:21:58 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

I can't blame you for not following all he posts, but he *did* and
*does* look into this (FTPUSE) [1], but for some reason, he can not get
it to work on Windows *10*. (He used it before on some other Windows
version - probably Windows XP - and I used (no longer need it) it on
Windows 8.1.)

He has asked for others to test it on Windows 10, but AFAICT nobody
has done so. I wonder why!? :-)

If you have Windows 10 and want to help him, please feel free.


Hi Frank,
Don't hold your breath for Rudy Wieser to ever do anything an adult would
do, where he can only play his silly little childish fifth-grade games.

Thankfully, a person posted on the a.c.f ng that he tested FTPUse on
Windows 10, which worked just fine for him using the same OliveTree FTP
server I used.

I asked him to check the SFTP NetDrive freeware & will report back if he
runs that SFTP Net Drive test successfully.
o https://www.nsoftware.com/sftp/netdrive/ (it took a bogus name & email)

Since I already had two working solutions (both DnD and ND worked fine for
me), as I said before, I won't bother to debug why both SFTPNetDrive and
FTPUse fail for me.

Bear in mind that my network is "slightly complex" as NetBIOS broadcasts
are blocked, for example, so my home network is "slightly" non standard.

Also, I've modified the hell out of Windows 10, with over 200 tutorials
written alone for what to change, so it really should have been tested on a
pristine system, but since I already have two working solutions, it's not
worth that kind of effort.

The good news is that FTPUse works on Windows 10 so _others_ can use it.
That's all I really care about.
  #22  
Old October 23rd 18, 04:37 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 18:56:58 +0100, David Taylor wrote:

At least one of those methods works for a friend. Very timely!


In case it helps others, here's my running log file from my last tests,
earlier this morning, before I gave up on the FTP "net use" syntax.

Often, empirically, I find stuff that nobody else seems ot know about (sort
of like how an ant finds scraps of food), where some of the scraps below
may help others.

I'm pretty much done with the FTP "net use" syntax checks, but it's a
bitch, sometimes, to get the syntax correct because _most_ examples on the
net are for SMB, which has no concept of the "@SSL" & "@PORT" &
"://userasswd" and the "/USER:user password" syntax.

=== begin ad-hoc log ===
0. Starting with this freeware Android FTP server set to its defaults

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.theolivetree.ftpserver
IP = 192.168.1.7
Port = 2221
Passive ports = 2300-2399
Home directory = SdCard
User name = francis
User password = francis
1. The 1st control is the simplest test, which is to construct this
syntactically correct web browser URI, which works just fine
in a Windows Firefox browsing session on Windows.

2. The next control is to use that exact URI as the address for a Windows
File Explorer "network location", which also works just fine:

3. The next control is that the Android FTP share mounts using Windows
NetDrive freeware which mounts the FTP share as a drive letter.
4. The next control is that the Android FTP share mounts with Windows
DirectNetDrive freeware as a drive letter.

So, we know that Windows has no problem mounting the FTP share as a
"removable drive" or using that FTP share as a "network location".

We may just not know the syntax to use for the "net use" command.

For FTP & WebDAV, "net use" syntax will need both a port & login
credentials, where we know that UNC specifies ports, but not login
credentials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Transfer_Protocol
ftp://[user[assword]@]host[ort]/url-path
But we also know that "net use" handles UNCs & login credentials:

https://superuser.com/questions/344775/passing-unc-username-and-password-within-a-unc-path#344933
net use M: \\192.168.1.7@8080\DCIM /user:francis francis
net use N: \\192.168.1.7@2221\DCIM /user:francis francis

5. The next control is to start a freeeware WebDAV server set to defaults:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.theolivetree.webdavserver
IP = 192.168.1.7
Port = 8080
Home directory = SdCard
User name = not set
User password = not set
6. Where this URI works just fine in a Windows web browser session:
http://192.168.1.7:8080/DCIM/Camera
7. And where that same URI easily creates a Windows "network location":
http://192.168.1.7:8080/DCIM/Camera
8. More to the point, similar syntax works with the "net use" command:
net use X: \\192.168.1.7@8080\DCIM\Camera
The command completed successfully.

While that test alone handily proves "net use" handles more than just the
"SMB" protocol on TCP port 445, we haven't yet proven whether "net use" can
handle the FTP protocol on port 2221.

Testing UNC syntax will be based on this Microsoft documentation:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/desktop/api/davclnt/nf-davclnt-davgethttpfromuncpath
Where the syntax for Windows' Universal Naming Convention (UNC) is:
\\HostName[@SSL][@Port]\SharedFolder\Resource

9. Let's add login credentials to the WebDAV setup:
IP = 192.168.1.7
Port = 8080
Home directory = SdCard
User name = francis
User password = francis
And then we stop and restart the Android WebDAV server.
10. Constructing this URI, as a URL for a Windows web browser works fine:

11. That same URI works fine as a Windows "network location":

12. More to the point, let's now retry "net use" syntax with credentials:
net use X: \\192.168.1.7@8080\DCIM\Camera /user:francis francis
The command completed successfully.
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=2542487dir016.jpg
13. Moving closer to the desired URI, let's change WebDAV port magic:
IP = 192.168.1.7
Port = 8000
Home directory = SdCard
User name = francis
User password = francis
14. As expected, the web browser URI with that syntax worked fine:

15. And the "net use" UNC syntax with that port number also worked fine:
net use X: \\192.168.1.7@8000\DCIM\Camera /user:francis francis
The command completed successfully.
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8381514dir017.jpg

Unfortunately, I can't get the WebDAV server to accept port 2221.
So I'll set the FTP server to accept port 8080 instead.
IP = 192.168.1.7
Port = 8080
Passive Ports: 8100-8199
Home directory = /storage/emulated/0
User name = francis
User password = francis

16. The Windows web browser worked fine:

17. The Windows "network location" worked fine:

18. But the Windows "net use" attempt failed:
net use X: \\192.168.1.7@8080\ /user:francis francis
System error 53 has occurred.
The network path was not found.
http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=3626731dir018.jpg
=== end ad-hoc log ===
  #23  
Old October 23rd 18, 11:55 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Carlos E. R.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to somethinghigher than 1024 on Windows?

On 23/10/2018 02.37, Arlen Holder wrote:
Hi Frank,
Don't hold your breath for Rudy Wieser to ever do anything an adult would
do, where he can only play his silly little childish fifth-grade games.


People would believe you better if you stopped attacking people and stay
professional, without insults.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.
  #24  
Old October 23rd 18, 01:10 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 21:43:42 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

And thats another reason why I dislike the guy. He keeps dumping his
requests into the XP newsgroup, even though he should be aware that programs
working on XP likely won't work on W10 (and vise verse).


C'mon Rudy Wieser,

You dislike me because I mirror your own posts which prove you're stupid.

I do that, obviously, to alienate you.
I want you to just go away.

*You can _never_ add any technical value to any thread, Rudy.*

You're utterly worthless, Rudy.
You prove me right in that everything you post is worthless, Rudy.

You don't even _comprehend_ the problem set, Rudy.
Everything you wrote was dead _wrong_, Rudy.
And then you throw stones, Rudy.

I'm only _responding_ to your posts, Rudy.
If you never posted to a thread I cared about, you'd never hear from me.

When you get _that_ point, Rudy, you'll finally comprehend
o My strategy is to alienate you, Rudy.
o My tactics are to use your own words to prove you're worthless, Rudy.

If I'm not clear Rudy, let me know.

BTW, to add value, it came up in the a.c.f thread the following, which
others may benefit from, particularly those, like Rudy, on older versions
of Windows - which is very useful technical information for those of you on
older Windows who still wish to do what we've done here to mount Android
file systems onto Windows in order to run Windows commands directly on
them:

"Win2k and down net use does NOT support WebDAV on their own.
You have to use 3rd party utilities if you want to map a drive
via webDAV in those cases."

Since Rudy is on WinXP (I believe), then maybe _he_ can act like an adult
to figure out what those 3rd-party utilities might be. That would be an
adult thing to do - which would be to _add value_.

But it would take an adult to actually add technical value to this thread.
  #25  
Old October 23rd 18, 01:10 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:55:17 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

People would believe you better if you stopped attacking people and stay
professional, without insults.


Hi Carlos E.R.,

I believe you have the problem set all wrong, Carlos, because you can't see
what I can see, IMHO, which is why you won't be able to comprehend the
strategy or the tactics used, IMHO.
o You, Carlos, appear to not comprehend there are two types of threads;
o Those you have a vested interest in the outcome; and those you don't.

*I can see what you can see; but you can't see what I can see, IMHO.*

It's like you only see the police arresting the criminals; but you never
show that you comprehend that the police arresting criminals is only the
secondary _response_ to the primary act of the criminals in the first
place.

I've been on Usenet for decades, as have most people here.
o IMHO, there are people who add value (only a small handful), and,
o There is everyone else (most of whom will _never_ add technical value).

This thread, like most Usenet threads IMHO, showed how the system works
o Only 1 to 3 posters out of all who read it, added _any_ value
o The rest, like your post & those from Wieser, add no technical value

Usenet, IMHO, is a potluck picnic, where
o Those 1 to 3 adults who add technical value are fantastic
o Because of those few adults, we all improve our technical skills

In this thread, AFAICR, the only adults who added technical value, were
o Frank Slootweg (e.g., he _explained_ things better than I could)
o Paul (e.g., he is _always_ purposefully helpful)
o Me (e.g., I added the beautifully elegant WebDAV solution)

The rest, were worthless posts
o Every post, for example, from Rudy Wieser, was worthless, IMHO.
o As was every post of mine, responding to his worthless drivel.

The problem, as I see it, Carlos, is this patently clear:
o Once the trolls infest a thread, the thread is ruined
o It's no different from when vermin infest a public potluck picnic.

*The question is _how_ to deal with those worthless vermin.*
o There is no good way to deal with the vermin
o Once they have infested the potluck picnic that is Usenet

If you have no vested interest in the outcome of the thread...
o Then, the rule of not feeding the vermin holds well
o Why? Because you don't care that the vermin ruined _that_ picnic.
o Hence, you don't see me confront the cowardly bullies in those threads.

However ... if you have a vested interest in the outcome of the thread
o Then the rule of letting the vermin ruin the picnic no longer works
o You need a strategy that saves the _next_ picnic from the vermin
o And your tactics must fit that strategy of saving the next picnic.

My strategy & my tactics are simple, logical, consistent, & reasonable.
o My tactics are to confront the bully trolls _with their own words_.
o My strategy is to funnel them by being a mirror of their own intent.

Hence, Carlos, I believe you are missing the point, IMHO, in that what
_you_ apparently see is only the secondary response to the primary insult.

Remember, I can see _everything_ you can see since anyone can see it; but
you haven't shown any comprehension of what I can see, based on what you
write.

It appears that you're only seeing the _response_ to the worthless trolls.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend that it's a _response_.

It's like you only see the police arresting the criminals;
you can't see the criminals performing the act that got them arrested.

My strategy, as Frank Slootweg can easily attest to, is the normal strategy
of society, which is to reward adult behavior and to confront the bully
trolls by being a funnel mirror, to wit:
o If they act like adults, I treat them as adults;
o If they act like children, I treat them as children.

In summary, there is no good way to deal with vermin trolls, just as there
is no good way to deal with criminals who rob banks. You can only ignore
them, or react to them.

If they rob a bank you have no vested interest in, then the rule of not
feeding the trolls works just fine (simply because you don't care about the
outcome of that thread).

But if the vermin infest a potluck picnic that you have a vested interest
in, then that picnic is _already_ ruined - all you can do - is implement a
strategy and tactics that preserve the _next_ potluck picnic.

I don't fear silence.

If I post a hard question, and nobody answers, that's fine because that's
how hard questions happen to be.

If I post a hard question, and the vermin respond in droves, then that's
far worse than a thread asking a question that nobody has the answer to.

If the next technical question I post has only 1 to 3 adult responses from
the likes of Frank Slootweg, Paul, Andy Burns, ML, and me, then we _all_
benefit since we're the only ones who added any value in this thread
(IMHO).
  #26  
Old October 23rd 18, 03:11 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On Tue, 23 Oct 2018 12:10:45 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

If the next technical question I post has only 1 to 3 adult responses from
the likes of Frank Slootweg, Paul, Andy Burns, ML, and me, then we _all_
benefit since we're the only ones who added any value in this thread
(IMHO).


To continue the adult task of adding technical value, this snippet from
a.c.f implies that the older WinXP _can_ handle "net use" mounting of
WebDAV servers:

"Starting with Windows XP, net use does support WebDAV, natively.
Do you remember one of the touted new features of XP?
The so called 'web folders'? Well, that's how it works."

Which we can combine with this related snippet from the same person:

"Win2k and down net use does NOT support WebDAV on their own.
You have to use 3rd party utilities if you want to map a drive
via webDAV in those cases."
  #27  
Old October 23rd 18, 04:58 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

Arlen Holder wrote:
[...]

What I wish I understood better is why Windows treats them differently,
and, more importantly, why I can almost perfectly treat the WebDav share as
an X: drive, even though it doesn't literally show up as a "removable
drive" as shown in this screenshot I posted a few days ago when I started
this quest.
o "net use" http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=8605173dir05.jpg


When you use 'net use' (or 'Map network drive' in File Explorer), you
are creating a Network Drive, not a plain 'Drive'.

Note that in your screenshot, all your 'Drive's are together in the
'Devices and drives' section of FE. Apparently Windows 10 FE has
'Drive', 'Removable Disk' and 'Local Disk' in this section. (8.1 just
has names and icons.) Anyway, the point is that in this section, all
things are *non*-'Network Drive's.

As said, the drive 'X:' you created via the 'net use' command is a
*Network* Drive and hence appears in the 'Network locations' section of
FE.

So there is a difference between a 'Removable Disk' (K: in your
screenshot) and a Network Drive (X: in your screenshot).

For a 'Removable Disk', you can do an 'Eject'.

For a Network Drive, you can do a 'Disconnect' or 'net use /delete'.

Notice, by way of contrast, that FTP shares do show up as literally a
"removable drive".
o DirectNetDrive http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6340420dir012.jpg
o NetDrive v1.3.2.0 http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1383190dir014.jpg


Indeed. While these drives are *associated* with a network, they are
*not* Network Drives (i.e. do not appear in the 'Network locations'
section of FE), but are 'normal' drives, just as any drive in the
'Devices and drives' section of FE. So these drives are the same type as
your C: drive.

I hope this has unconfused things a bit! :-)

[..]
  #28  
Old October 23rd 18, 05:16 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Frank Slootweg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,226
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

R.Wieser wrote:

['chit-chat' deleted. :-)]

That's why he - and everybody else - *wants* a SMB solution,
but - unless rooted - Android can not use ports below 1024 and
Windows is too stupid to use another port (than the default 445),
which most other SMB clients/servers *can*.


I thought that that was solved ? I saw him mention a few port echoing
(proxy) programs, with one of them being a standard windows app. Did it
fizzle out for some reason ?


No, AFAIK the portmapping issue is not solved and - AFAIK - getting a
SMB server on non-rooted Android to work - i.e. even with a port higher
than 1024 - is not solved yet.

I can't blame you for not following all he posts, but he *did*
and *does* look into this (FTPUSE) [1],


Its not that I think that he doesn't look into stuff, but that he expects
others to name the programs that will solve his problems.


To be fair, I think he actually does both, i.e. does some research and
'expects' others to do the rest. In some cases , the research part is
minimal to (nearly) absent. In other cases, there's quite a bit of
research, but the prresentation is ... ummm .. 'sub-optimal'. :-)

The main problem is his MO when interacting with people who he
'disagrees' with for some strange 'reason's. He tries to justify that
MO, but before you know it, he again draws first blood and things go
down hill with lightning speed.

I've been in and out of his bad/good books several times. Now I'm
again in his good book and get praised like there's no tomorrow. But
some day in the not too distant future, I'm sure I'll be 'vermin', a
'moron', etc. again.

[1] AFAIR, he was actually the first to mention FTPUSE in these groups.


I might be too pessimistic - its ofcourse possible that he found some usable
software on his own - but seeing how he pumps everyone here to come up with
the programs he needs my default is to assume he got it by pumping some poor
sod outside these newsgroups.

He has asked for others to test it on Windows 10, but AFAICT
nobody has done so. I wonder why!? :-)


well... uuhh... Yeah, what can I say. I think he there reaps what he has
sown. whistle


Exactly! I wonder if he even realizes this consequence of his MO.

If you have Windows 10 and want to help him, please feel free.


No and no.


Oops, sorry, didn't want to offend you by implying that you might be
so stupid as to have 10, let alone run it! :-)

And thats another reason why I dislike the guy. He keeps dumping his
requests into the XP newsgroup, even though he should be aware that programs
working on XP likely won't work on W10 (and vise verse).


+1
  #29  
Old October 23rd 18, 08:21 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On 23 Oct 2018 16:16:07 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

No, AFAIK the portmapping issue is not solved and - AFAIK - getting a
SMB server on non-rooted Android to work - i.e. even with a port higher
than 1024 - is not solved yet.


While we've solved a lot of common problems in this thread...
there is far much more for intelligent people to improve:
1. There is no working non-root solution for SMB mounting over WiFi
2. There is no known freeware solution for MTP mounting over USB

I have confidence that I will eventually solve both those problems (as I
almost never fail), but it won't be easy; and it will likely take a few
golden nuggets of knowledge from the intelligent adults on this newsgroup
to do so.

To be fair, I think he actually does both, i.e. does some research and
'expects' others to do the rest. In some cases , the research part is
minimal to (nearly) absent. In other cases, there's quite a bit of
research, but the prresentation is ... ummm .. 'sub-optimal'. :-)


What Frank Slootweg wrote is correct in that I do a lot more research than
the likes of proven morons such as Rudy Wieser can _ever_ comprehend; but,
it's also true that I ask questions when solutions that may exist are
unknown to me.

Each nugget of knowledge helps move our capabilities forward.

For an example of where we each provide knowledge nuggets that help each
other move the ball forward, Frank was the first to inform me that NetDrive
wasn't always payware, which helped me find the older version that was
freeware which easily mounted FTP shares over WiFi as drive letters.

Likewise, Frank said that I was the first to post on these newsgroups about
FTPUse freeware, which he hadn't known about until I found it in my
searches for replacing "net use" years ago for mounting FTP shares over
WiFi as drive letters.

The problem with people like Rudy Wieser is that they contain literally
zero of those knowledge nuggets.

The main problem is his MO when interacting with people who he
'disagrees' with for some strange 'reason's. He tries to justify that
MO, but before you know it, he again draws first blood and things go
down hill with lightning speed.


Frank Slootweg - we have been down this path too many times.
I repeat that you have no concept of two things:

1. USENET MODEL:
o Not everyone is on Usenet for idle chitchat.
o Some of us are here to solve tough problems

2. INTELLIGENT ADULTS:
o My strategy is to openly alienate worthless child-like posters
o I do that by being a mirror to funnel them into acting like adults

You know I've done that with you Frank, so I won't belabor the obvious.

You act as if it's the policeman's fault that he has to pull over someone
who habitually drives on the shoulder, horns blaring, to avoid traffic.

My response is *never* what you call 'first blood'; you're just ignorant of
the obvious where you blame the police for having to arrest the bank robber
after they've robbed the bank a dozen times already.

I've been in and out of his bad/good books several times. Now I'm
again in his good book and get praised like there's no tomorrow. But
some day in the not too distant future, I'm sure I'll be 'vermin', a
'moron', etc. again.


Frank Slootweg,
You just _proved_ you have absolutely no concept of a funnel & a mirror:
o The strategy is to funnel people into acting like adults
o The tactic is to use a mirror of their own posts to do so

To wit:
o When you act like a child, Frank Slootweg, I treat you as a child.
o When you act like an adult, I treat you as an adult.

It's a well-thought out strategy whose tactics support the strategy.
If you haven't figured this out by now, after having explained it to you so
many times already, you'll _never_ figure this out, Frank.

All you see is that sometimes I treat you like a child, while other times I
treat you as an adult.

What you don't see, is that I am a mirror of your posts, Frank.
A mirror.

Exactly! I wonder if he even realizes this consequence of his MO.


What's hilarious is that Rudy Wieser actually thinks that by alienating
him, we on this newsgroup, somehow (I can't explain how???) lose out?

We _gain_ a ton when the likes of Rudy Wieser *don't* post to a thread!

Folks like Rudy Wieser, Char Jackson, Wolf K, Rene Lamantagne, and a host
of others, don't have the mental capacity to add value to an adult topic.

For example, ask any of those what solution they'd propose to:
o Solve the non-root SMB drive-mounting question over WiFi
o Solve the non-payware MTP drive-mounting question over WiFi

I'm confident that I _can_ (possibly) solve those two problems, with the
help of the experts here ... but those trolls? No way.

They've proven long ago that all they _can_ do, is troll.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/eONWlmNhhPU/_sw2o0_xAgAJ

*Who are the vermin that infest this newsgroup with their trolls?*
o *Rudy Wieser* [From: "R.Wieser" ]
o *Ken Blake* [From: Ken Blake ]
o *Wolf K* [From: Wolf K ]
o *Danny DeVito* [From: Danny DeVito ]
o *Char Jackson* [From: Char Jackson ]
o *Sam Hill* [From: Sam Hill ]
o *joe* [From: joe ]
o *Good Guy* [From: Good Guy ]

The _less_ these worthless vermin post, the _more_ we can move forward.

Oops, sorry, didn't want to offend you by implying that you might be
so stupid as to have 10, let alone run it! :-)


While I've solved _many_ a difficult problem, with the help of intelligent
people here, the sad fact is that the vermin listed above will _never_
solve any difficult problem.

All the people like Rudy Wieser _can_ do, is troll.

Ask any of them, for example, what's _their_ solution for:
1. A working non-root solution for SMB mounting over WiFi
2. A freeware solution for MTP mounting over USB
  #30  
Old October 23rd 18, 08:46 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,comp.mobile.android
Arlen Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 185
Default What's the best way to forward SMB TCP port 445 to something higher than 1024 on Windows?

On 23 Oct 2018 15:58:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

When you use 'net use' (or 'Map network drive' in File Explorer), you
are creating a Network Drive, not a plain 'Drive'.


Hi Frank Slootweg,
I appreciate that you're the _only_ person on this newsgroup who shows that
he comprehends not only the underlying Windows action, but also the desired
goal, and the tested solutions.

I only fully comprehend the desired goal, where I comprehend the tested
solutions less, and even less do I comprehend the underlying Windows
technology.

It must be true, as you say, that a "network drive" is not quite the same
thing, as a "drive", where, in the case of FTP "network drives", it's
different even more so, than it is in the case of WebDav "network drives".

Note that in your screenshot, all your 'Drive's are together in the
'Devices and drives' section of FE. Apparently Windows 10 FE has
'Drive', 'Removable Disk' and 'Local Disk' in this section. (8.1 just
has names and icons.) Anyway, the point is that in this section, all
things are *non*-'Network Drive's.


Indeed.
o FTP shares show up in the top "removable" drive section, while
o WebDAV shares show up in the bottom "network" drive section.

Yet, in both, I can right click and "Open command window here", which gives
me a command prompt on the "X:" file system, which then allows me to run
DOS commands *directly* on the mounted filesystem.

But they act slightly differently to a "X:" command undertaken from the C:
location inside a command prompt window.

As said, the drive 'X:' you created via the 'net use' command is a
*Network* Drive and hence appears in the 'Network locations' section of
FE.
So there is a difference between a 'Removable Disk' (K: in your
screenshot) and a Network Drive (X: in your screenshot).


The difference exists, that's for sure.
Luckily, both allow "Open command prompt here" to work.

But, as noted, they work differently with respect to the command prompt:
o You can do more with FTP shares, than you can with WebDAV shares

For a 'Removable Disk', you can do an 'Eject'.
For a Network Drive, you can do a 'Disconnect' or 'net use /delete'.


Yes. I noticed that the dismounts were different between them.
o We eject FTP drives
o We disconnect WebDAV drives

I'm not sure what power that provides, but I did notice the delta.


Notice, by way of contrast, that FTP shares do show up as literally a
"removable drive".
o DirectNetDrive http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=6340420dir012.jpg
o NetDrive v1.3.2.0 http://www.bild.me/bild.php?file=1383190dir014.jpg


Indeed. While these drives are *associated* with a network, they are
*not* Network Drives (i.e. do not appear in the 'Network locations'
section of FE), but are 'normal' drives, just as any drive in the
'Devices and drives' section of FE. So these drives are the same type as
your C: drive.

I hope this has unconfused things a bit! :-)


Thanks, Frank Slootweg, for taking the energy to explain the networking
part of things.

As I noted, I'm very good with the problem set, and I'm fantastic at
empirically arriving at a solution for almost any difficult problem set
(since I use the same tactics as ants use to find food).

What I'm terrible at, is the underlying expertise in Windows.

I just don't have it - and I don't spend my time obtaining it since I spend
my time solving problems that nobody else seems to have solved before.

To that end, I will continue to strive to solve these remaining issues:
1. *There is no working non-root solution for SMB mounting over WiFi*
2. *There is no known freeware solution for MTP mounting over USB*

I have confidence that I will eventually solve both those problems (as I
almost never fail), but it won't be easy; and it will likely take a few
golden nuggets of knowledge from the intelligent adults on this newsgroup,
like you, in order to do so.

Thanks.

--
Funnel. Mirror.
Strategy. Tactics.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.