break in msn 6.2 voice conversation

Stephen,
What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical disconnection.
Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
Nick

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to time,
therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had no
problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that advice to
Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing her QoS.

I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled simply.

You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to disable QoS.

The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not available.
After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you have
to
uninstall QoS not untick it.

Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she wrote.

You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give the
impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the computer
case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by mouse. I
don't
have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used your
imagination
to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed was
adequate.

You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has conjured
up.
Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because most
routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them, and
you
can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the internet.

Reference Shirley's quote
"I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
of the msn service?????"


As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from an
authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall automatically
installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user intervenes
and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP
ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by
Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where
this information is located?

Nick

You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you think
that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled out
by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of games.

What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not to go
into detail.

That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was wretched.

Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
"I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to the
OP."

SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you reincarnating
as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander scale
than your guru striker.

Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows Firewall
automatically installed which disables the questioned ports unless the
user
intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not automatically a
bad decision.
Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as physical
removal
of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from the
internet is a
bad decision.

Nick wrote:
I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138;
TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to
KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information is
located?

This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports does
SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
"If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
__________________________________________________ _____

Hi Andy,

The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound connections
only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how the
current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.

Current Firewall:
1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation and
accepts it
2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for audio
conversation
3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to connect to
the other contact
4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open port

and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also open
some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).

The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the SP2
firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger, therefore not
requiring the individual ports to be opened.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert

Mark Olbert wrote:

I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.

Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
or has MS blocked that forever?

torgeir, wrote: Hi

WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.

To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
exception" for the firewall.

This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it out
with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service Pack 2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

quote
Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
Firewall\some Profile
Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception

"Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall opens
TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote administration.
You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports. Because
disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or LSASS.exe
or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if the
Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows Firewall:
Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
port exceptions.

WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...d-499f73a637d1

--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

Nick wrote:
As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended.

SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be understood
in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
thousands
of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so at all.

Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't mean
it that way. I meant it as a technical description.

Sincerely,
Stephen

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical disconnection.

That is a lie.

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

You read that post and misinterpreted it. Ron's postings had
nothing to with physical removal. That was a figment of your
imagination.

Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
Nick


Another ignorant remark. It might be normally true for a router.
But it is not true for a dial-up modem. And a dial-up modem
connection normally produces this error situation not a router.

And a modem is often connected near a desk with the connection on
the floor and the computer sits on top of the desk facing a wall and
often not easily accesible to the modem plug-in in the back of the computer.

A physical disconnection is certainly more difficult for elderly people.
Your narrow interpretation makes me think you are a teenager or at
least have not grown up yet, because you have a teenage mentality.

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to time,
therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had no
problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that advice to
Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing her QoS.

I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled simply.

You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to disable QoS.

The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not
available.
After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you have
to
uninstall QoS not untick it.

Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she wrote.

You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give the
impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the computer
case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by mouse. I
don't
have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used your
imagination
to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed was
adequate.

You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has conjured
up.
Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because most
routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them, and
you
can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the
internet.

Reference Shirley's quote
"I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
of the msn service?????"


As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from an
authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall automatically
installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user intervenes
and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP
ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by
Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on
where this information is located?

Nick

You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you think
that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled out
by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of games.

What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not to go
into detail.

That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was wretched.

Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
"I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to the
OP."

SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you
reincarnating
as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander scale
than your guru striker.

Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows Firewall
automatically installed which disables the questioned ports unless the
user
intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not automatically a
bad decision.
Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as physical
removal
of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from the
internet is a
bad decision.

Nick wrote:
I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138;
TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to
KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information is
located?

This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports does
SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service Pack
2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
"If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
__________________________________________________ _____

Hi Andy,

The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound connections
only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how the
current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.

Current Firewall:
1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation and
accepts it
2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for audio
conversation
3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to connect
to the other contact
4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open port

and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also open
some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).

The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the SP2
firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger, therefore
not requiring the individual ports to be opened.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert

Mark Olbert wrote:

I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.

Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
or has MS blocked that forever?

torgeir, wrote: Hi

WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.

To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
exception" for the firewall.

This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it out
with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service Pack
2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

quote
Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
Firewall\some Profile
Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception

"Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall opens
TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote administration.
You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports. Because
disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or LSASS.exe
or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if the
Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows Firewall:
Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
port exceptions.

WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...d-499f73a637d1

--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

Nick wrote:
As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended.

SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be understood
in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
thousands
of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so at all.

Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't mean
it that way. I meant it as a technical description.

Sincerely,
Stephen

Stephen,
I'm not going to argue with you further. You are an obnoxious person
and extremely rude. I have tried to conduct this discussion without
resulting to personal insults but you make this impossible with your
immature mentality.
Nick

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical disconnection.

That is a lie.

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

You read that post and misinterpreted it. Ron's postings had
nothing to with physical removal. That was a figment of your
imagination.

Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
Nick


Another ignorant remark. It might be normally true for a router.
But it is not true for a dial-up modem. And a dial-up modem
connection normally produces this error situation not a router.

And a modem is often connected near a desk with the connection on
the floor and the computer sits on top of the desk facing a wall and
often not easily accesible to the modem plug-in in the back of the
computer.

A physical disconnection is certainly more difficult for elderly people.
Your narrow interpretation makes me think you are a teenager or at
least have not grown up yet, because you have a teenage mentality.

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to time,
therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had no
problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that advice to
Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing her
QoS.

I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled simply.

You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to disable
QoS.

The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not
available.
After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you have
to
uninstall QoS not untick it.

Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she wrote.

You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give the
impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the computer
case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by mouse. I
don't
have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used your
imagination
to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed was
adequate.

You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has conjured
up.
Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because most
routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them, and
you
can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the
internet.

Reference Shirley's quote
"I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
of the msn service?????"


As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from an
authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall automatically
installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user
intervenes and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented anywhere
that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are
blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can
enlighten me on where this information is located?

Nick

You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you think
that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled out
by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of games.

What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not to go
into detail.

That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was wretched.

Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
"I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to the
OP."

SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you
reincarnating
as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander scale
than your guru striker.

Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows Firewall
automatically installed which disables the questioned ports unless the
user
intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not automatically a
bad decision.
Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as physical
removal
of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from the
internet is a
bad decision.

Nick wrote:
I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138;
TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to
KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information is
located?

This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports does
SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service Pack
2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
"If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
__________________________________________________ _____

Hi Andy,

The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound connections
only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how the
current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.

Current Firewall:
1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation and
accepts it
2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for
audio conversation
3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to connect
to the other contact
4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open port

and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also open
some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).

The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the SP2
firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger, therefore
not requiring the individual ports to be opened.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert

Mark Olbert wrote:

I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.

Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
or has MS blocked that forever?

torgeir, wrote: Hi

WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.

To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
exception" for the firewall.

This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it out
with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service Pack
2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

quote
Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
Firewall\some Profile
Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception

"Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall opens
TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote administration.
You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports. Because
disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or LSASS.exe
or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if the
Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows Firewall:
Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
port exceptions.

WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...d-499f73a637d1

--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

Nick wrote:
As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended.

SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be
understood
in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
thousands
of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so at
all.

Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't mean
it that way. I meant it as a technical description.

Sincerely,
Stephen

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
I'm not going to argue with you further. You are an obnoxious person
and extremely rude. I have tried to conduct this discussion without
resulting to personal insults but you make this impossible with your
immature mentality.
Nick


There has never been a discussion in this thread. You have never
had anything worthwhile to say and when your lies were exposed
you tried to misrepresent the issue and make a strawman argument:

Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
Nick

You try to weasel out of your lie about another post recommending
physical removal (that you misunderstood) and now try to represent
the issue as an argument over a matter of convenience; both methods
take about the same amount of time, so therefore both methods are
correct. You think that because you are ignorant and you think you can
slide it by because you are hoping there isn't another reason besides
time why you shouldn't recommend the practice of shutting off devices
physically rather than by the preferred method of software shutdown.

The answer to Shireley's question was: Go ahead and uninstall
QoS if you can't untick that option box, it won't bother MSN.

Shirley wrote:

"I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
of the msn service?????"

SH: Your answer has nothing to do with a solution, it is a fabrication.

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

SH: First, you don't know if she has a router and therefore likely doesn't
need
to disconnect from the internet in order to uninstall QoS. Second, you
don't tell her if she has a dial-up connection, to simply not make the
connection.
Third, you recommend a physically disconnecting of the device instead of a
mouse click. That means you know squat about being a hardware technician.

There is a lot of discrepancy between your answer and the right answer
and then you stubbornly defended ignorance. I was rude to you and insulted
you because you deserved no respect. You tried to pass off your lying
bungling, inept advice and then failed to admit when you were caught.
Instead you told more lies and tried to change the subject.

This post may be excused due to ignorance:

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick


But to continue to defend it is a stupid lie. Your are not going to save
any face by once again trying to change the subject to my rudeness.
I would not have insulted you or been rude to you if you had not
deliberately lied and tried to point your finger at other unrelated issues.






"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical disconnection.

That is a lie.

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

You read that post and misinterpreted it. Ron's postings had
nothing to with physical removal. That was a figment of your
imagination.

Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
Nick


Another ignorant remark. It might be normally true for a router.
But it is not true for a dial-up modem. And a dial-up modem
connection normally produces this error situation not a router.

And a modem is often connected near a desk with the connection on
the floor and the computer sits on top of the desk facing a wall and
often not easily accesible to the modem plug-in in the back of the
computer.

A physical disconnection is certainly more difficult for elderly people.
Your narrow interpretation makes me think you are a teenager or at
least have not grown up yet, because you have a teenage mentality.

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...

"Old Nick" wrote in message
...
Stephen,
I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to time,
therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had no
problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that advice
to
Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing her
QoS.

I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled simply.

You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to disable
QoS.

The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not
available.
After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you
have
to
uninstall QoS not untick it.

Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she wrote.

You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give the
impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the computer
case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by mouse. I
don't
have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used your
imagination
to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed was
adequate.

You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging)
the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has conjured
up.
Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because most
routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them, and
you
can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the
internet.

Reference Shirley's quote
"I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
of the msn service?????"


As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from an
authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall automatically
installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user
intervenes and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented
anywhere
that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are
blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can
enlighten me on where this information is located?

Nick

You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you think
that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled out
by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of games.

What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not to go
into detail.

That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was wretched.

Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
"I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to
the
OP."

SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you
reincarnating
as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander
scale
than your guru striker.

Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows Firewall
automatically installed which disables the questioned ports unless
the
user
intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not automatically
a
bad decision.
Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as physical
removal
of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from the
internet is a
bad decision.

Nick wrote:
I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138;
TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to
KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information is
located?

This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports does
SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
Pack
2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
"If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
__________________________________________________ _____

Hi Andy,

The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound connections
only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.

I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how the
current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.

Current Firewall:
1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation and
accepts it
2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for
audio conversation
3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to connect
to the other contact
4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open port

and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also
open
some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).

The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the SP2
firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger, therefore
not requiring the individual ports to be opened.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert

Mark Olbert wrote:

I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.

Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
or has MS blocked that forever?

torgeir, wrote: Hi

WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.

To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
exception" for the firewall.

This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it out
with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.

Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
Pack
2
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

quote
Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
Firewall\some Profile
Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception

"Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall opens
TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote administration.
You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports. Because
disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or LSASS.exe
or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if the
Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows Firewall:
Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
port exceptions.

WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...d-499f73a637d1

--
torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx

Nick wrote:
As you have mentioned another post, ref.
http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
document the it should be amended.

SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be
understood
in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
thousands
of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so at
all.

Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't mean
it that way. I meant it as a technical description.

Sincerely,
Stephen

Stephen P Harris
You should be ashamed of yourself. As I see it, Nick only gave his opinion
(this is a public forum) whereas you from the start set out to belittle him.
Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors liars.
Normally I just read these forums without contributing but your behaviour
and attitude has compelled me to respond.
I consider you an ill-mannered oaf.
C Montague

"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...
:
: "Old Nick" wrote in message
: ...
: Stephen,
: I'm not going to argue with you further. You are an obnoxious person
: and extremely rude. I have tried to conduct this discussion without
: resulting to personal insults but you make this impossible with your
: immature mentality.
: Nick
:
:
: There has never been a discussion in this thread. You have never
: had anything worthwhile to say and when your lies were exposed
: you tried to misrepresent the issue and make a strawman argument:
:
: Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
: connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
: disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
: Nick
:
: You try to weasel out of your lie about another post recommending
: physical removal (that you misunderstood) and now try to represent
: the issue as an argument over a matter of convenience; both methods
: take about the same amount of time, so therefore both methods are
: correct. You think that because you are ignorant and you think you can
: slide it by because you are hoping there isn't another reason besides
: time why you shouldn't recommend the practice of shutting off devices
: physically rather than by the preferred method of software shutdown.
:
: The answer to Shireley's question was: Go ahead and uninstall
: QoS if you can't untick that option box, it won't bother MSN.
:
: Shirley wrote:
:
: "I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
: I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
: options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
: check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
: it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
: of the msn service?????"
:
: SH: Your answer has nothing to do with a solution, it is a fabrication.
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
: SH: First, you don't know if she has a router and therefore likely doesn't
: need
: to disconnect from the internet in order to uninstall QoS. Second, you
: don't tell her if she has a dial-up connection, to simply not make the
: connection.
: Third, you recommend a physically disconnecting of the device instead of a
: mouse click. That means you know squat about being a hardware technician.
:
: There is a lot of discrepancy between your answer and the right answer
: and then you stubbornly defended ignorance. I was rude to you and insulted
: you because you deserved no respect. You tried to pass off your lying
: bungling, inept advice and then failed to admit when you were caught.
: Instead you told more lies and tried to change the subject.
:
: This post may be excused due to ignorance:
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
:
: But to continue to defend it is a stupid lie. Your are not going to save
: any face by once again trying to change the subject to my rudeness.
: I would not have insulted you or been rude to you if you had not
: deliberately lied and tried to point your finger at other unrelated
issues.
:
:
:
:
:
:
: "Stephen Harris" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Old Nick" wrote in message
: ...
: Stephen,
: What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical disconnection.
:
: That is a lie.
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
: You read that post and misinterpreted it. Ron's postings had
: nothing to with physical removal. That was a figment of your
: imagination.
:
: Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for the
: connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on the
: disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
: Nick
:
:
: Another ignorant remark. It might be normally true for a router.
: But it is not true for a dial-up modem. And a dial-up modem
: connection normally produces this error situation not a router.
:
: And a modem is often connected near a desk with the connection on
: the floor and the computer sits on top of the desk facing a wall and
: often not easily accesible to the modem plug-in in the back of the
: computer.
:
: A physical disconnection is certainly more difficult for elderly
people.
: Your narrow interpretation makes me think you are a teenager or at
: least have not grown up yet, because you have a teenage mentality.
:
: "Stephen Harris" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Old Nick" wrote in message
: ...
: Stephen,
: I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to time,
: therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
: suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had no
: problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that advice
: to
: Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing her
: QoS.
:
: I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
: But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
: A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
: by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled
simply.
:
: You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
: he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
: on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
: Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to disable
: QoS.
:
: The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not
: available.
: After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you
: have
: to
: uninstall QoS not untick it.
:
: Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
: Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
: So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she
wrote.
:
: You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give the
: impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the computer
: case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
: This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by mouse.
I
: don't
: have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
: realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used your
: imagination
: to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed
was
: adequate.
:
: You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
: No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has
conjured
: up.
: Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because
most
: routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them,
and
: you
: can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the
: internet.
:
: Reference Shirley's quote
: "I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
: I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
: options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
: check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
: it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
: of the msn service?????"
:
:
: As you have mentioned another post, ref.
: http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
: document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from an
: authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall automatically
: installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user
: intervenes and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented
: anywhere
: that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137
are
: blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can
: enlighten me on where this information is located?
:
: Nick
:
: You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
: you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you think
: that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
: almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled out
: by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of
games.
:
: What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not to
go
: into detail.
:
: That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
: your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was
wretched.
:
: Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
: "I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to
: the
: OP."
:
: SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you
: reincarnating
: as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander
: scale
: than your guru striker.
:
: Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows
Firewall
: automatically installed which disables the questioned ports unless
: the
: user
: intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not
automatically
: a
: bad decision.
: Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as physical
: removal
: of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from
the
: internet is a
: bad decision.
:
: Nick wrote:
: I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and
138;
: TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you appear
to
: KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information
is
: located?
:
: This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports does
: SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
: disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?
:
: Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
: Pack
: 2
:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
: "If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
: this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
: 445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
: receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
: services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
: __________________________________________________ _____
:
: Hi Andy,
:
: The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound connections
: only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.
:
: I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how the
: current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.
:
: Current Firewall:
: 1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation and
: accepts it
: 2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for
: audio conversation
: 3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to
connect
: to the other contact
: 4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
: 5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open port
:
: and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also
: open
: some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).
:
: The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the
SP2
: firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger,
therefore
: not requiring the individual ports to be opened.
: ____________________________________________
: Jonathan Kay
: Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
: Associate Expert
:
: Mark Olbert wrote:
:
: I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
: subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
: per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.
:
: Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
: or has MS blocked that forever?
:
: torgeir, wrote: Hi
:
: WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
: as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.
:
: To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
: exception" for the firewall.
:
: This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it out
: with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
: netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.
:
: Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
: Pack
: 2
:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
:
: quote
: Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
: Firewall\some Profile
: Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception
:
: "Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
: tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
: Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall opens
: TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
: communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
: Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
: SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
: and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
: ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
: policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
: unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote administration.
: You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
: incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
: this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
: 445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
: receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
: services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports. Because
: disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
: not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
: sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
: attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
: recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
: programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or LSASS.exe
: or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
: do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
: opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
: request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if the
: Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
: them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
: Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows Firewall:
: Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
: port exceptions.
:
: WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
: Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...d-499f73a637d1
:
: --
: torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
: Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
: the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx
:
: Nick wrote:
: As you have mentioned another post, ref.
: http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
: document the it should be amended.
:
: SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be
: understood
: in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
: thousands
: of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so at
: all.
:
: Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
: makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
: It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't mean
: it that way. I meant it as a technical description.
:
: Sincerely,
: Stephen
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

"C Montague" wrote in message
...
Stephen P Harris
You should be ashamed of yourself. As I see it, Nick only gave his
opinion
(this is a public forum) whereas you from the start set out to belittle
him.

How is your post any different? Isn't some stranger just tuning into this
thread going to find your post to me belittling? Nick does have a history of
undeserved holier than thou, high and mightiness which I may have quoted in
this thread:

Nick wrote:
"And I standby my original Post " treat the cause and not the symptoms".
I can see we will never agree, so let's just abide by our own opinion. I
just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening to the OP.
Nick"

Nick is not capable of practicing what he preaches.

Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors liars.

Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors behavior
disgraceful? I would imagine it is because you feel you have the right to
express your opinion and at the same time you don't think I have the same
right because you disagree with it.

Normally I just read these forums without contributing but your behaviour
and attitude has compelled me to respond.

That is because you are a like-minded two-faced moral imposter as is Nick.
You feel it is ok for you to pass out grades in ethics because you are
"superior".
Nick feels he can give computer advice because of his superior logical
reasoning.

Now you say Nick "only gave his opinion" My first response was:

"No you were not following the advice given in that thread."

Nick wrote:
Shirley,
"A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
(unplugging) the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
Nick

SH replied to Nick:
"There is nothing in either thread you quoted about _"physically removing"_
the connection. Maybe you don't know what the above ^^^ term means.
Choosing not to connect to the internet is a logical software solution or
it is something you don't do, which is not a physical removal. The ideas are
different because sometimes you have to physically remove an internal Nic
card in order to uninstall drivers or change resources for an internal
modem. JK was saying it didn't matter if you uninstalled QoS."

SH: I was in a position to comment objectively about this because I was
involved in the post(s) Nick referred to above. I received personal email
from Ron who was the person needing help when this issue was resolved,
thanking me for my help.

So I was in a position to state that Nick's initial post was factually in
error.
There is no reference whatsoever, to "physically removing the connection".
What you may regard as 'belittle' is my recognition that Nick for some
reason, performed a major bungle in interpreting those posts.

Nick's advice, factually, ranged from useless to slightly harmful,
depending upon the setup and age of the person implementing his advice.
Nick is too inexperienced to take such things into account.

But he is not too young to know not to give advice about a particualr
subject
that he knows practically nothing about. This is a peer to peer support
forum.
That entitles everyone to post an opinion. But this forum has another
purpose,
which is to provide helpful information to people with problems. That
purpose
is not served by people contributing advice to other people whose value
ranges
from inappropriate to quite useless bordering on harmful depending on the
situation of the person who tried to use such advice.

My first response labels his advice as useless, which it truthfully is, and
is indeed mildly critical because I realize Nick has posted on a topic that
he knows hardly anything about. That is not helpful to other current readers
on this forum, or to poeple who will later read the archives of this
newsgroup
when they encounter the same problem.

That is the ethical standard I adhere to. Correctness of advice given is
more
important than the right to post wrong information under freedom of speech,
as I think the purpose of this forum is to emphasize helpful advice to
problems,
not some self-aggrandizing, pretend to be helpful, acutally ingnorant
misinformation.

I did not accuse Nick of lying in his initial post of advice. But in his
defense
of that initial post where he kept bringing up/diverting attention to
irrelevant
subjects. Like that Microsoft' documentation was out of date since SP2,
or that in the best case scenario, it only took several seconds more to
disconnect a cable rather than use the mouse to disable a connection.
So I referred to his lying in later posts which would be clear to someone
who
read the entire thread.

You would know that if you had read the entire thread carefully. Nick
didn't read those prior posts that he used for reference carefully either.
He just spouted off at the mouth, or blew hot air. You also have no
technical expertise to evaluate Nick's posting. You are of the same ilk
as Nick which is why you took offense. I believe in calling a liar a liar
because it warns other people. I have no use for the morality of people
who encourage the posturing of false civility when confronted with a lie.

Certainly I belittled Nick's later posts when he tried to cloud/confuse the
issue
of his giving stinking advice by bringing up irrelevant side issues. Some
people
might interpret mildly disparaging language as equivalent to mild
condemnation.

I am proud of doing that. I believe in calling a spade a spade.
Nick's first post can be considered a mistake. But his effort
to justify his mistake became a lie.

I consider you an ill-mannered oaf.
C Montague


And I consider your morals phoney flotsam.
I don't want to be liked by shallow, superficial, philosophical people.
Your pretensions permeate your post.

You have a problem with your personal honesty and
I think it is unlikely you make backups of your computer. And IMO,
it is unlikely you are capable of seeing how these issues are related.

In case it is not clear, I am showing contempt for your post,
not merely dismissing or belittling it. That is not really true,
I hold you and your kind in contempt.

Brids of a feather, flock together,
Stephen


"Stephen Harris" wrote in message
...
:
: "Old Nick" wrote in message
: ...
: Stephen,
: I'm not going to argue with you further. You are an obnoxious person
: and extremely rude. I have tried to conduct this discussion without
: resulting to personal insults but you make this impossible with your
: immature mentality.
: Nick
:
:
: There has never been a discussion in this thread. You have never
: had anything worthwhile to say and when your lies were exposed
: you tried to misrepresent the issue and make a strawman argument:
:
: Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for
the
: connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on
the
: disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
: Nick
:
: You try to weasel out of your lie about another post recommending
: physical removal (that you misunderstood) and now try to represent
: the issue as an argument over a matter of convenience; both methods
: take about the same amount of time, so therefore both methods are
: correct. You think that because you are ignorant and you think you can
: slide it by because you are hoping there isn't another reason besides
: time why you shouldn't recommend the practice of shutting off devices
: physically rather than by the preferred method of software shutdown.
:
: The answer to Shireley's question was: Go ahead and uninstall
: QoS if you can't untick that option box, it won't bother MSN.
:
: Shirley wrote:
:
: "I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
: I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
: options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
: check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
: it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
: of the msn service?????"
:
: SH: Your answer has nothing to do with a solution, it is a fabrication.
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
: SH: First, you don't know if she has a router and therefore likely
doesn't
: need
: to disconnect from the internet in order to uninstall QoS. Second, you
: don't tell her if she has a dial-up connection, to simply not make the
: connection.
: Third, you recommend a physically disconnecting of the device instead of
a
: mouse click. That means you know squat about being a hardware
technician.
:
: There is a lot of discrepancy between your answer and the right answer
: and then you stubbornly defended ignorance. I was rude to you and
insulted
: you because you deserved no respect. You tried to pass off your lying
: bungling, inept advice and then failed to admit when you were caught.
: Instead you told more lies and tried to change the subject.
:
: This post may be excused due to ignorance:
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
:
: But to continue to defend it is a stupid lie. Your are not going to save
: any face by once again trying to change the subject to my rudeness.
: I would not have insulted you or been rude to you if you had not
: deliberately lied and tried to point your finger at other unrelated
issues.
:
:
:
:
:
:
: "Stephen Harris" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Old Nick" wrote in message
: ...
: Stephen,
: What a fuss you are making over physical or electrical
disconnection.
:
: That is a lie.
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
: You read that post and misinterpreted it. Ron's postings had
: nothing to with physical removal. That was a figment of your
: imagination.
:
: Normally to physically disconnect is just a matter of reaching for
the
: connection at the wall, if you disconnect at the wall or click on
the
: disconnect icon makes very little difference in effort expended.
: Nick
:
:
: Another ignorant remark. It might be normally true for a router.
: But it is not true for a dial-up modem. And a dial-up modem
: connection normally produces this error situation not a router.
:
: And a modem is often connected near a desk with the connection on
: the floor and the computer sits on top of the desk facing a wall and
: often not easily accesible to the modem plug-in in the back of the
: computer.
:
: A physical disconnection is certainly more difficult for elderly
people.
: Your narrow interpretation makes me think you are a teenager or at
: least have not grown up yet, because you have a teenage mentality.
:
: "Stephen Harris" wrote in message
: ...
:
: "Old Nick" wrote in message
: ...
: Stephen,
: I have an ADSL connection which polls my computer from time to
time,
: therefore I physically disconnected the link to conform with Ron's
: suggested procedure (disconnecting the connection), anyway I had
no
: problems when I physically broke the connection. I gave that
advice
: to
: Shirley who seemed to be having problems deleting/un-installing
her
: QoS.
:
: I did not say that you could not break the connection your way.
: But I did say it was the wrong way and the wrong advice to give.
: A router can be disabled by a mouse click near its status option or
: by disabling the nic card will break the connection and enabled
simply.
:
: You quoted some posts made by Ron. He was using dial-up and
: he broke his connection (which he never had to make) by clicking
: on the ATT dial-up screen which has connect --- disconnect options.
: Then he entered properties from that screen and proceeded to
disable
: QoS.
:
: The option to untick QoS is when using dial-up like Ron, is not
: available.
: After you disable the dial-up internet the internet connection you
: have
: to
: uninstall QoS not untick it.
:
: Shirley may have a router, but a dial-up modem shows up in Network
: Connections, and you can use Properties / Networking to get to QoS.
: So you don't know if she has a router or a dial-up from what she
wrote.
:
: You gave the wrong instructions for a dial-up, because they give
the
: impression you have to unplug the telephone cord or open the
computer
: case and remove the internal modem. That is what physical means.
: This is inefficient when you have the option of doing this by
mouse.
I
: don't
: have to be a Know It All to know what the word disconnect means or
: realize that advice for dial-up does not fit dsl well. You used
your
: imagination
: to substitute for your limited knowledge which you brashly supposed
was
: adequate.
:
: You were clueless about those conditions when you dispensed advice:
:
: Nick wrote:
: Shirley,
: "A few days ago I saw a post which suggested physically removing
: (unplugging)
: the connection to the ISP to enable removing QoS."
: Nick
:
: No post said anything like what your reading comprehension has
conjured
: up.
: Jonathan Kay gives advice that works on a router. That is because
most
: routers do not have the Qos option greyed out, you can untick them,
and
: you
: can untick them or uninstall them while you are connected to the
: internet.
:
: Reference Shirley's quote
: "I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
: I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
: options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
: check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
: it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
: of the msn service?????"
:
:
: As you have mentioned another post, ref.
: http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
: document the it should be amended. Again I was only quoting from
an
: authorised MS Document. You say that "Windows Firewall
automatically
: installed which disables the questioned ports unless the user
: intervenes and allows the ports". I cannot find it documented
: anywhere
: that UDP ports 135, 137, and 138; TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137
are
: blocked by Sp.2. As you appear to KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can
: enlighten me on where this information is located?
:
: Nick
:
: You know it took me awhile to figure out what you meant, what
: you interpreted this portion of my post to mean. Why would you
think
: that you would find this documented? SP2 Windows Firewalls block
: almost all ports except those required by the OS and not singled
out
: by installing software that requires unique ports like a lot of
games.
:
: What you stated was bluntly wrong, and striker just decided not
to
go
: into detail.
:
: That means the advice you passed on about physically disconnecting
: your internet connection device (router or dial-up modem) was
wretched.
:
: Striker's fault, if you want to call it that, was according to you
: "I just feel that you should have been a little more enlightening
to
: the
: OP."
:
: SH: The enlightenment contained in your advice will have you
: reincarnating
: as a troglodyte. IOW, you missed the cosmic mark on a much grander
: scale
: than your guru striker.
:
: Win xp SP2 comes with messenger service disabled and Windows
Firewall
: automatically installed which disables the questioned ports
unless
: the
: user
: intervenes and allows the ports. That is a choice, not
automatically
: a
: bad decision.
: Whereas using some method other than mouse clicks such as
physical
: removal
: of internal modem or unplugging the telephone to disconnect from
the
: internet is a
: bad decision.
:
: Nick wrote:
: I cannot find it documented anywhere that UDP ports 135, 137, and
138;
: TCP ports 135, 139, and 445 137 are blocked by Sp.2. As you
appear
to
: KNOW IT ALL perhaps you can enlighten me on where this information
is
: located?
:
: This question is poorly framed. A better question is what ports
does
: SP2 block automatically and which does it open. Can you allow or
: disallow each and every port with Windows Firewall?
:
: Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
: Pack
: 2
:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
: "If you disable or do not configure {see further down page for url}
: this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
: 445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
: receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
: services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports."
: __________________________________________________ _____
:
: Hi Andy,
:
: The Windows XP firewall (current and SP2) handle inbound
connections
: only -- outgoing connections are not blocked.
:
: I'm not 100% sure what you mean here, so I'll simply explain how
the
: current firewall does it and then how the SP2 firewall can.
:
: Current Firewall:
: 1. Either side of a conversation initiates an Audio conversation
and
: accepts it
: 2. Messenger sends API call to firewall to open necessary port for
: audio conversation
: 3. Messenger sends information on current IP and audio port to
connect
: to the other contact
: 4. Incoming connection from contact to the specified port
: 5. After conversation is complete, API call to remove the open
port
:
: and we're done. Also keep in mind that Windows Messenger will also
: open
: some ports when it starts (MSN Messenger does not).
:
: The SP2 firewall is basically the same, with the exception that the
SP2
: firewall will allow you to unblock all inbound to Messenger,
therefore
: not requiring the individual ports to be opened.
: ____________________________________________
: Jonathan Kay
: Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
: Associate Expert
:
: Mark Olbert wrote:
:
: I cannot connect WMI Control to a remote SP2 machine (on the same
: subnet). I've checked to ensure the correct TCP port is open as
: per the KB article I found -- it is -- but still no joy.
:
: Is there anyway to use WMI against a remote XP SP2 machine now,
: or has MS blocked that forever?
:
: torgeir, wrote: Hi
:
: WMI (or more correctly RPC/DCOM) uses TCP ports 135 and 445 as well
: as dynamically-assigned ports above 1024.
:
: To handle this, you need to enable "Allow remote administration
: exception" for the firewall.
:
: This can be done with gpedit.msc for a local computer, or push it
out
: with a AD GPO if possible. You can also use the command line tool
: netsh.exe to do this, see further down for how.
:
: Group Policy Settings Reference for Windows XP Professional Service
: Pack
: 2
:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en
:
: quote
: Administrative Templates\Network\Network Connections\Windows
: Firewall\some Profile
: Windows Firewall: Allow remote administration exception
:
: "Allows remote administration of this computer using administrative
: tools such as the Microsoft Management Console (MMC) and Windows
: Management Instrumentation (WMI). To do this, Windows Firewall
opens
: TCP ports 135 and 445. Services typically use these ports to
: communicate using remote procedure calls (RPC) and Distributed
: Component Object Model (DCOM). This policy setting also allows
: SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE to receive unsolicited incoming messages
: and allows hosted services to open additional dynamically-assigned
: ports, typically in the range of 1024 to 1034. If you enable this
: policy setting, Windows Firewall allows the computer to receive the
: unsolicited incoming messages associated with remote
administration.
: You must specify the IP addresses or subnets from which these
: incoming messages are allowed. If you disable or do not configure
: this policy setting, Windows Firewall does not open TCP port 135 or
: 445. Also, Windows Firewall prevents SVCHOST.EXE and LSASS.EXE from
: receiving unsolicited incoming messages, and prevents hosted
: services from opening additional dynamically-assigned ports.
Because
: disabling this policy setting does not block TCP port 445, it does
: not conflict with the Windows Firewall: Allow file and printer
: sharing exception policy setting. Note: Malicious users often
: attempt to attack networks and computers using RPC and DCOM. We
: recommend that you contact the manufacturers of your critical
: programs to determine if they are hosted by SVCHOST.exe or
LSASS.exe
: or if they require RPC and DCOM communication. If they do not, then
: do not enable this policy setting. Note: If any policy setting
: opens TCP port 445, Windows Firewall allows inbound ICMP echo
: request messages (the message sent by the Ping utility), even if
the
: Windows Firewall: Allow ICMP exceptions policy setting would block
: them. Policy settings that can open TCP port 445 include Windows
: Firewall: Allow file and printer sharing exception, Windows
Firewall:
: Allow remote administration exception, and Windows Firewall: Define
: port exceptions.
:
: WF_XPSP2.doc "Deploying Windows Firewall Settings for Microsoft
: Windows XP with Service Pack 2" is downloadable from
:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...d-499f73a637d1
:
: --
: torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
: Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
: the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr...r/default.mspx
:
: Nick wrote:
: As you have mentioned another post, ref.
: http://www.mvps.org/sramesh2k/Popups.htm, if SP.2 supersedes this
: document the it should be amended.
:
: SH: IMO, supersedes means to replace and such things should be
: understood
: in terms of practical reality. Microsoft cannot rewrite hundreds of
: thousands
: of pages of documentation in a few weeks, if they choose to do so
at
: all.
:
: Your research is also sloppy and second-rate. Your other post
: makes no sense to me. This is all the free time you get from me.
: It case you think I insulted you by calling you stupid, I didn't
mean
: it that way. I meant it as a technical description.
:
: Sincerely,
: Stephen
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

"C Montague" wrote in message
...
Stephen P Harris
You should be ashamed of yourself. As I see it, Nick only gave his
opinion
(this is a public forum) whereas you from the start set out to belittle
him.
Who gave you the right to police these forums and call contributors liars.
Normally I just read these forums without contributing but your behaviour
and attitude has compelled me to respond.

I consider you an ill-mannered oaf.
C Montague


You are just: yet another silly peacock preening your nonsurvival traits.

Dear All,

I think many users having audio problems after upgrading to version 6.2.
Before i don't had any problems with audio conversations, all of the
suggestions mentioned here i tried and nothing works.
Finally i tried Windows Messenger version 4.7 and no problems at all, there
is direct a connection and quality of audio is also perfect. So on the same
hardware and connection Windows Messenger is working Fine and MSN 6.2 don't.
It seems that MSN 6.2 has a problem with Full Duplex, because somethimes i
hear the conversation and the other side hears nothing, and viceversa.
There must be an conflict between Windows Messenger and MSN Messenger.

Best regards Ronald


"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" wrote:

Hi Shirley,

It's safe to uninstall, go ahead and just uninstall it.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2004 Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
I followed the instructions and got to the point of where
I was attempting to uncheck the Qos Packet and the only
options are to uninstall/install...even though it has a
check tick in it I cannot get the tick to come out. Is
it safe to uninstall Qos Packet or is it a necessary part
of the msn service????? Your help to date for this dummy
from down under is appreciated.
-----Original Message-----
Greetings Shirley,

You and your contact might try turning off the QoS
Packet Scheduler. To do so, click Start,
then All Programs, then Accessories, then
Communications, and then Network Connections.
Right click your network/internet connection, then click
Properties. Uncheck the QoS Packet
Scheduler, and try again.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Microsoft MVP - Windows Messenger/MSN Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
All posts unless otherwise specified are (c) 2004
Jonathan Kay.
You *must* contact me for redistribution rights.


"Shirley" wrote in
message
...
I can have a voice conversation but only hear
intemittently what is said to me...This has only
occurred
since the download of XP service pack 2....my friends
can
hear me, and I only hear the first word or two that
they
say...can someone please help


.