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,
: > 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,
: >>> 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,
: >>>>> 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/...c0-19b9-4acc-b5be-9b7dab13108e&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/...c0-19b9-4acc-b5be-9b7dab13108e&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/details.aspx?familyid=4454e0e1-61fa-447a-bdcd-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/scriptcenter/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
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>>
: >>
: >>
: >
: >
: >
: >
: >
:
:
