Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > misc.phone.mobile.iphone > #194584 > unrolled thread

For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong

Back to article view | Back to misc.phone.mobile.iphone

Contents

  For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-04-17 14:39 +0000
    Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong?    (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-04-17 15:36 +0000
    Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 16:17 +0000
      Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong) Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-04-17 16:35 +0000
        Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong) "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> - 2025-04-17 16:51 +0000
          Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-04-17 10:04 -0700
            Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2025-04-17 17:10 +0000
            Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-04-17 17:16 +0000
          Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong) Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2025-04-17 17:09 +0000
            Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-04-17 17:38 +0000
      Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-04-17 13:00 -0700
        Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2025-04-17 20:03 +0000
      Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-04-18 02:27 +0000
        Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-04-18 04:13 +0000
          Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-04-18 04:56 +0000
            Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Tyrone <none@none.none> - 2025-04-18 13:15 +0000
              Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Marion <marion@facts.com> - 2025-08-27 23:20 +0000
        Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 06:05 +0000
          Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2025-04-18 06:15 +0000
        Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2025-04-18 16:13 +0000
          Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-04-18 10:50 -0700
    Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-04-17 12:59 -0700
    Re: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2025-04-18 11:06 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#194584 — For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong

Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.

Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that iOS is
magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow magically so).

While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those ports.

The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining whether the
Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're wrong and apologize... 

Is that it's a binary issue.
a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong

Time will tell, but what do you *predict* the Apple trolls will do if
they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary question of fact?

Will they apologize?
Or not?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#194586 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong)

On Apr 17, 2025 at 10:39:07 AM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.

No. The Apple users are telling you that it works.  You are the troll by
saying "Its impossible".

Why don't YOU DL the free LAN Drive SMB Server app and see for yourself? No, I
am not going to provide screen shots. YOU provide a screen shot of the app in
the App Store AND a screen shot of you running the app on an iPad/iPhone. 

This app clearly uses port 445. First, it says so right in the app AND I
connect to it using this in Windows Powershell:

net use F: \\10.0.0.149\LANDrive /tcpport:445 /USER:Test Test-905
The command completed successfully.

You were proven wrong on the "Its impossible to copy a photo from Windows to
iOS without using internet servers" claim.  No apology yet for that. 

Then you were wrong on the "Its impossible to connect from Windows to iOS
because an SMB Server is impossible on iOS". No apology for that yet.

NOW you are claiming that the SMB Server that DOES allow you to connect from
Windows to iOS can't be using port 445. Even though proof has been shown. 
When are you going to apologize for that? 

BTW you showing how you connect to a web server on Android using port 8080 is
not proof that SMB port 445 does not work on iOS. That you think it does is
laughable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194587

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
> 
> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that iOS is
> magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow magically so).
> 
> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those ports.
> 
> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining whether the
> Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're wrong and apologize... 
> 
> Is that it's a binary issue.
> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
> 
> Time will tell, but what do you *predict* the Apple trolls will do if
> they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary question of fact?
> 
> Will they apologize?
> Or not?
> 

I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….

https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194588 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong)

On Apr 17, 2025 at 12:17:45 PM EDT, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
>> 
>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that iOS is
>> magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow magically so).
>> 
>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those ports.
>> 
>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining whether the
>> Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're wrong and apologize...
>> 
>> Is that it's a binary issue.
>> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>> 
>> Time will tell, but what do you *predict* the Apple trolls will do if
>> they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary question of fact?
>> 
>> Will they apologize?
>> Or not?
>> 
> 
> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
> 
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229

While that is interesting, it does not even matter at this point. Arlen is
already proven wrong, by 3 sources.  Myself, Jolly Roger and the app in
question. The SMB Server on iOS DOES use port 445.  

But as usual, he can't accept it and will never apologize for being such a
dipshit.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194589 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong)

Tyrone wrote:

>On Apr 17, 2025 at 12:17:45 PM EDT, "badgolferman"
><REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple
>>>trolls.   
>>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that
>>>iOS is  magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow
>>>magically so).   
>>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those
>>>ports.   
>>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining
>>>whether the  Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're
>>>wrong and apologize...   
>>> Is that it's a binary issue.
>>> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>>> 
>>> Time will tell, but what do you predict the Apple trolls will do
>>>if  they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary
>>>question of fact?   
>>> Will they apologize?
>>> Or not?
>>> 
>> 
>> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
>> 
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
>
>While that is interesting, it does not even matter at this point.
>Arlen is already proven wrong, by 3 sources.  Myself, Jolly Roger and
>the app in question. The SMB Server on iOS DOES use port 445.  
>
>But as usual, he can't accept it and will never apologize for being
>such a dipshit.


I'm not discounting your earlier screenshot, but how do you know the
program isn't intercepting incoming traffic at Port 445 and forwarding
it to another port?  Without a network scanner that would be hard to
tell.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194592 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong?

On 2025-04-17 09:51, badgolferman wrote:
> Tyrone wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 17, 2025 at 12:17:45 PM EDT, "badgolferman"
>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple
>>>> trolls.
>>>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that
>>>> iOS is  magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow
>>>> magically so).
>>>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>>>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those
>>>> ports.
>>>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining
>>>> whether the  Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're
>>>> wrong and apologize...
>>>> Is that it's a binary issue.
>>>> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>>>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>>>>
>>>> Time will tell, but what do you predict the Apple trolls will do
>>>> if  they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary
>>>> question of fact?
>>>> Will they apologize?
>>>> Or not?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
>>>
>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
>>
>> While that is interesting, it does not even matter at this point.
>> Arlen is already proven wrong, by 3 sources.  Myself, Jolly Roger and
>> the app in question. The SMB Server on iOS DOES use port 445.
>>
>> But as usual, he can't accept it and will never apologize for being
>> such a dipshit.
> 
> 
> I'm not discounting your earlier screenshot, but how do you know the
> program isn't intercepting incoming traffic at Port 445 and forwarding
> it to another port?  Without a network scanner that would be hard to
> tell.

Because, you simpleton:

If a program can "intercept" traffic on a port, then it must be 
LISTENING on that port in the first place.

Hence there would be no NEED to forward the traffic to another port.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194595 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong?

On 2025-04-17, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2025-04-17 09:51, badgolferman wrote:
>> Tyrone wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 17, 2025 at 12:17:45 PM EDT, "badgolferman"
>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>>>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple
>>>>> trolls.
>>>>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that
>>>>> iOS is  magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow
>>>>> magically so).
>>>>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>>>>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those
>>>>> ports.
>>>>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining
>>>>> whether the  Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're
>>>>> wrong and apologize...
>>>>> Is that it's a binary issue.
>>>>> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>>>>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>>>>>
>>>>> Time will tell, but what do you predict the Apple trolls will do
>>>>> if  they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary
>>>>> question of fact?
>>>>> Will they apologize?
>>>>> Or not?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
>>>>
>>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
>>>
>>> While that is interesting, it does not even matter at this point.
>>> Arlen is already proven wrong, by 3 sources.  Myself, Jolly Roger and
>>> the app in question. The SMB Server on iOS DOES use port 445.
>>>
>>> But as usual, he can't accept it and will never apologize for being
>>> such a dipshit.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not discounting your earlier screenshot, but how do you know the
>> program isn't intercepting incoming traffic at Port 445 and forwarding
>> it to another port?  Without a network scanner that would be hard to
>> tell.
>
> Because, you simpleton:
>
> If a program can "intercept" traffic on a port, then it must be 
> LISTENING on that port in the first place.
>
> Hence there would be no NEED to forward the traffic to another port.

Arlen and badgolferman just can't help but show the world just how
ignorant they are - all while screaming that Apple users don't know
anything. If either of them had an ounce of self awareness, they'd be
too embarrassed to show their faces here again. 🤣

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194596 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong?

On Apr 17, 2025 at 1:04:43 PM EDT, "Alan" <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2025-04-17 09:51, badgolferman wrote:
>> Tyrone wrote:
>> 
>>> On Apr 17, 2025 at 12:17:45 PM EDT, "badgolferman"
>>> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>>>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple
>>>>> trolls.
>>>>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that
>>>>> iOS is  magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow
>>>>> magically so).
>>>>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>>>>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those
>>>>> ports.
>>>>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining
>>>>> whether the  Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're
>>>>> wrong and apologize...
>>>>> Is that it's a binary issue.
>>>>> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>>>>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>>>>> 
>>>>> Time will tell, but what do you predict the Apple trolls will do
>>>>> if  they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary
>>>>> question of fact?
>>>>> Will they apologize?
>>>>> Or not?
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
>>>> 
>>>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
>>> 
>>> While that is interesting, it does not even matter at this point.
>>> Arlen is already proven wrong, by 3 sources.  Myself, Jolly Roger and
>>> the app in question. The SMB Server on iOS DOES use port 445.
>>> 
>>> But as usual, he can't accept it and will never apologize for being
>>> such a dipshit.
>> 
>> 
>> I'm not discounting your earlier screenshot, but how do you know the
>> program isn't intercepting incoming traffic at Port 445 and forwarding
>> it to another port?  Without a network scanner that would be hard to
>> tell.
> 
> Because, you simpleton:
> 
> If a program can "intercept" traffic on a port, then it must be
> LISTENING on that port in the first place.
> 
> Hence there would be no NEED to forward the traffic to another port.

Touché.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194594 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong? (was: For the adults - let's see if the Apple trolls apologize if they're wrong)

On 2025-04-17, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not discounting your earlier screenshot, but how do you know the
> program isn't intercepting incoming traffic at Port 445 and forwarding
> it to another port?  Without a network scanner that would be hard to
> tell.

Here's how:

# nc -z rogersiphone 1-65535
Connection to rogersiphone port 53 [tcp/domain] succeeded!
Connection to rogersiphone port 445 [tcp/microsoft-ds] succeeded!
Connection to rogersiphone port 853 [tcp/domain-s] succeeded!

You gonna keep disputing reality now? Or are you waiting for Arlen to
drop out first?

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194597 — Re: For the adults - Why can't Arlen apologize when he is proven wrong?

On Apr 17, 2025 at 1:09:12 PM EDT, "Jolly Roger" <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:

> On 2025-04-17, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not discounting your earlier screenshot, but how do you know the
>> program isn't intercepting incoming traffic at Port 445 and forwarding
>> it to another port?  Without a network scanner that would be hard to
>> tell.
> 
> Here's how:
> 
> # nc -z rogersiphone 1-65535
> Connection to rogersiphone port 53 [tcp/domain] succeeded!
> Connection to rogersiphone port 445 [tcp/microsoft-ds] succeeded!
> Connection to rogersiphone port 853 [tcp/domain-s] succeeded!
> 
> You gonna keep disputing reality now? Or are you waiting for Arlen to
> drop out first?

This is no longer merely comical.  It is now totally absurd.  Denial ain't
just a river in Egypt.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194606

On 2025-04-17 09:17, badgolferman wrote:
> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
>>
>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that iOS is
>> magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow magically so).
>>
>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those ports.
>>
>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining whether the
>> Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're wrong and apologize...
>>
>> Is that it's a binary issue.
>> a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>>
>> Time will tell, but what do you *predict* the Apple trolls will do if
>> they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary question of fact?
>>
>> Will they apologize?
>> Or not?
>>
> 
> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
> 
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
> 
> 

And you don't care as long as you don't have to cross your liege lord.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194607

On 2025-04-17, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
> On 2025-04-17 09:17, badgolferman wrote:
>> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
>>>
>>> Boiling it down to the essentials, the Apple trolls insist that iOS
>>> is magical in that it can bind to privileged ports (somehow
>>> magically so).
>>>
>>> While that would be nice, my view is more pragmatic in that my
>>> understanding of iOS is that an SMB server can not bind to those
>>> ports.
>>>
>>> The beauty of this discussion, for the purpose of determining
>>> whether the Apple trolls have the capacity to admit when they're
>>> wrong and apologize...
>>>
>>> Is that it's a binary issue.  a. Either the Apple trolls are correct
>>> b. Or, the Apple trolls are wrong
>>>
>>> Time will tell, but what do you *predict* the Apple trolls will do
>>> if they're found to be either right or wrong on this binary question
>>> of fact?
>>>
>>> Will they apologize?  Or not?
>> 
>> I’m not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
>> 
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
>
> And you don't care as long as you don't have to cross your liege lord.

Yup.

Meanwhile, he still hasn't backed up his claim that I supposedly lied
with a shred of evidence, proving badgolerman isn't a serious person.

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194635

On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :


>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.

> I'm not sure if this is helpful or harmful….
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229

Thanks. I appreciate you looking. I posted that same link a while
ago but it doesn't really tell us explicitly what we want to know.

To test what we want to know, I just spent the energy making the 
connection from Windows and copying files and then debugging 
which port was used.

Even though I couldn't explicitly set the port to 445, my debugging 
results show unequivocally that Chris & Tyrone were right. I'm sure 
that Jolly Roger is also right but he never added any value. 

Chris did work. He added value. He deserves both thanks & an apology.
Likewise with Tyrone. He did work too. Hence he added value and hence he
also deserves a thank you and an apology.

I was wrong about iOS not allowing apps to bind to ports <1024.
My tests below prove that the LAN drive app (which has been on my 
iPad since I first tested it in 2019) did indeed bind to port 445.

Just like Chris said it did from the very beginning.
And just like Tyrone said it did from the very beginning.
Both of whom I believe tested it themselves before saying that.

Very clearly I am stating these two very clear unequivocal statements:
1. I apologize for not believing Chris & Tyrone & Jolly Roger.
2. Because what I said about the ports (even those I always said
   it was "as far as I know" or "as far as I understand it" or 
   "as far as I can tell", etc., simply happened to be wrong.

Period. 

FACT:
 *Apple iOS 16 apps apparently can bind to the privileged port 445.*
ASSESSMENT (of that fact):
 This makes bidirectional transfer FROM the PC command line easy!

Thanks everyone for answering the question of how it works with iOS.
See below for the gory details backing up my strong statements above.

 On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 00:34:58 -0000 (UTC), Marion wrote :

> I'll profusely and publicly thank you later as I still need to figure out
> what port it used, as this doesn't prove that it used ports below 1024.
> 
> But when I specify the port, that will tell us the answer.
> In the meantime, do you know why the iOS drives don't show up as mounted?

OK. I finished a few of the Amazon Vine free product reviews. 

I rebooted Windows and the iPad to start fresh.

1. On Windows, determine that nothing is mapped yet.
    net use 
2. On iOS, press "Not Now" to Apple's incessant nags
   to log into the Cupertino servers every second.
3. Keep Pressing more "Not Now" bags until Apple gets tired
   since it's a fact of life that's how Apple designed iOS
   that you *must* constantly log into Cupertino servers.
4. Open the "LAN drive" app on your iOS desktop
5. Note the (dynamic) identifying information you'll need for later
    Server \\myipad
    IP \\192.168.1.252
    SMB TCP 445
    NETBIOS UDP 137 138
5. Note the "Users" are "Anonymous" in "LAN drive" on iOS
6. Note the "Sharings" are "LANdrive" & "DCIM" on iOS
7. Press the green "START" button on the iOS "Lan drive" GUI
8. On Windows, type the connection command with the port specified
   net use Z: \\192.168.1.252:445\LANdrive
    System error 67 has occurred.
    The network name cannot be found.
9. Don't specify port 445 this time 
    net use Z: \\192.168.1.252\LANdrive 
     The command completed successfully.
10. Try it again on the other share.
     net use Y: \\192.168.1.252:445\DCIM 
     System error 67 has occurred.
     The network name cannot be found.    
11. Try it again without specifying the port.
    net use Y: \\192.168.1.252\DCIM 
    The command completed successfully.
12. Notice they're now both mapped, but not to port 445.
    C:\Windows\system32>net use
    New connections will not be remembered.
    Status       Local     Remote                    Network
   ----------------------------------------------------------------
   OK           Y:        \\192.168.1.252\DCIM      Microsoft Windows
Network
   OK           Z:        \\192.168.1.252\LANdrive  Microsoft Windows
Network
   The command completed successfully.

Hmm... just as I had figured would happen.
Now we have to figure out what port it's using.

I'm not gonna use Wireshark because I've been there, done that.
Too much data to filter (if you don't know what I mean, 
you've never used Wiresharp to capture pcap data).
[Filter=tcp.dstport == 445 or tcp.dst == 192.168.1.252]

I can use Resmon though.
a. Win+R > resmon
b. Tap the "Network" tab
c. Open "TCP Connections"
d. net use * /delete

e. This reports:
   Image = System
   PID = 4
   Local Address = 192.168.1.239
   Local Port = 31246
   Remote Address = 192.168.1.252
   Remote Port = 445 
   Packet Loss (%) = 0
   Latency (ms) = 105

Bingo!
This indicates that even though explicitly specifying port 445 in the 
net use command failed, the successful connection without specifying 
the port is indeed using port 445! Woo hoo! This is great news!

Let's check this with netstat:
a. Win+R > cmd > {ctrl+shft+enter}
b. netstat -ano | findstr "ESTABLISHED"
C:\Windows\system32>netstat -ano | findstr "ESTABLISHED"
   TCP    192.168.1.239:31246    192.168.1.252:445      ESTABLISHED     4
  This line shows an established TCP connection between 
  the PC (192.168.1.239 on local port 31246) 
  and the iOS server 192.168.1.252 on port 445. 
  The PID 4 is usually associated with the System process,
  which handles various low-level network functions like SMB.

Let's try PowerShell.
a. Win+R > cmd > {ctrl+shft+enter}
b. C:\Windows\system32> powershell
c. Test-NetConnection -ComputerName 192.168.1.252 -Port 445
d. The results (after a bit of a wait) are...
    ComputerName     : 192.168.1.252
    RemoteAddress    : 192.168.1.252
    RemotePort       : 445
    InterfaceAlias   : Wi-Fi
    SourceAddress    : 192.168.1.239
    TcpTestSucceeded : True

Hmm.. so why didn't specifying the port work?
C:\Windows\system32>net use Y: \\192.168.1.252\DCIM
The command completed successfully.

C:\Windows\system32>net use Y: /delete
Y: was deleted successfully.

C:\Windows\system32>net use Y: \\192.168.1.252:139\DCIM
System error 67 has occurred.
The network name cannot be found.

C:\Windows\system32>net use Y: \\192.168.1.252\DCIM
The command completed successfully.

Anyway, even though I can't get the Windows 10 "net use"
command to specify the port explicitly, I'm satisfied
(and quite surprised!) that the debugging tools showed
that, indeed Chris, Tyrone & even Jolly Roger were 
quite correct that iOS is allowing the LAN drive 
freeware to bind to ports below 1024, specifically 445.

There is no doubt of that conclusion in my mind at this
point since I tested it and explicitly ran debuggers.

I publicly and humbly apologize to Chris, Tyrone, and 
to Jolly Roger for not believing them up until I tested it
myself and found that I was wrong and they were right.

I have no problem saying I'm wrong because I learned
that iOS is uniquely different from Android in that
iOS does apparently allow 3rd-party apps to bind to 
privileged ports. Of that there seems to be no doubt.

Note this XDA Developers thread which is about the 
same app for Android, but I don't need to test it
because I know Android can't bind to ports below 1024.

<https://xdaforums.com/t/app-4-0-3-no-root-lan-drive-samba-filesharing-server-smb1-and-smb2.3790945/>

Here's my post asking the developers the question (with screenshots).

<https://xdaforums.com/t/app-4-0-3-no-root-lan-drive-samba-filesharing-server-smb1-and-smb2.3790945/post-90056889>
  "On non-rooted Android, the "Lan Drive - SMB Server" APK won't 
   be able to bind to ports lower than 1024. I knew that. 
   But the iOS "Lan Drive - SMB Server" documentation above implies
   that the iOS "Lan Drive - SMB Server" IPA can bind to ports lower 
   than 1024 on non-jailbroken iOS devices.

   Huh?

   How is that possible?
   Can iOS 3rd-party apps like this 'Lan Drive - SMB Server' really
   bind to privileged ports (such as 445 & 139)?"

Anyone can click the URL to see if the developer responds; if the developer
does respond, we can also repeat the result here for all to see.

But in reality, Android works perfectly with Windows already, 
as I mount Android as a drive letter on Windows every day
using free WebDAV servers, so there's no need for SMB.

There are free iOS webdav servers though, which I haven't tried.

iOS WebDAV Servers (free)
1. WebDAV Navigator: 
   <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/webdav-navigator/id382551345>
2. FileBrowser: Documents Manager: 

<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/filebrowser-documents-manager/id364738545>

Note that there are also free SMB servers (all with caveats!)
Free iOS SMB servers
1. LAN Drive – SAMBA Server & Client (free has ads & is limited to 0.5
Mbps)
   SMB1 and SMB2 protocols (not SMBv3).

<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lan-drive-samba-server-client/id1317727404>

2. SMB Server (only SMB1)
   <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smb-server/id1019465487>

That's it. The rest are SMB clients or payware.

a. FileBrowserGo (does not offer full SMB funcdtionality)
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/filebrowsergo/id1243270214

b. Documents by Readdle (limited smb funcdtionality)
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/documents-file-manager-docs/id364901807

c. FE File Explorer (Free Version, limited & has ads, not an smb server)
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fe-file-explorer/id499298382

d. Solid Explorer by Sonya Long (not the same as Android's by NeatBytes)
Free iOS SMB servers
1. LAN Drive – SAMBA Server & Client (free has ads & is limited to 0.5
Mbps)
   SMB1 and SMB2 protocols (not SMBv3).

<https://apps.apple.com/us/app/lan-drive-samba-server-client/id1317727404>

2. SMB Server (only SMB1)
   <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smb-server/id1019465487>

That's it. The rest are SMB clients or payware.

a. FileBrowserGo (does not offer full SMB funcdtionality)
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/filebrowsergo/id1243270214

b. Documents by Readdle (limited smb funcdtionality)
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/documents-file-manager-docs/id364901807

c. FE File Explorer (Free Version, limited & has ads, not an smb server)
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/fe-file-explorer/id499298382

Be careful with this imposter app which Apple shouldn't have allowed.
Solid Explorer by Sonya Long (not the same as Android's by NeatBytes)
Does not support SMB
 <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/solid-explorer/id1219634272>

This supposedly works, but it's not free:
"FileBrowser Professional": This app is often mentioned for its file
sharing capabilities, including SMB. It's a paid app, and its developers
claim it offers robust SMB support.
 <https://apps.apple.com/us/app/filebrowser-professional/id854618029>


In summary, when I had opened this thread, I had asked how
non-rooted Android and non-jailbroken iOS SMB server apps
mapped their ports, and it appears that while Android apps
can not map to ports below 1024, apparently iOS apps can.

Who knew?
Not me.

I've never said I'm a networking expert (because I'm not).
So today I learned from others like Chris & Tyrone & Jolly Roger
who knew more than I did in this situation - which is great.

I love to learn.
I was wrong. But what's important is now I know the answer.

Thanks!
The main open question is why doesn't specifying the ports
in the Windows "net use" command work? Anyone have an idea?

Does it work for you?
Maybe it's just me?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194636

On Apr 17, 2025 at 10:27:19 PM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
> 
> 
>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
> 
>> I'm not sure if this is helpful or harmful¡K.
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
> 
> Thanks. I appreciate you looking. I posted that same link a while
> ago but it doesn't really tell us explicitly what we want to know.
> 
> To test what we want to know, I just spent the energy making the
> connection from Windows and copying files and then debugging
> which port was used.
> 
> Even though I couldn't explicitly set the port to 445, my debugging
> results show unequivocally that Chris & Tyrone were right. I'm sure
> that Jolly Roger is also right but he never added any value.
> 
> Chris did work. He added value. He deserves both thanks & an apology.
> Likewise with Tyrone. He did work too. Hence he added value and hence he
> also deserves a thank you and an apology.
> 
> I was wrong about iOS not allowing apps to bind to ports <1024.> My tests
> below prove that the LAN drive app (which has been on my
> iPad since I first tested it in 2019) did indeed bind to port 445.
> 
> Just like Chris said it did from the very beginning.
> And just like Tyrone said it did from the very beginning.
> Both of whom I believe tested it themselves before saying that.
> 
> Very clearly I am stating these two very clear unequivocal statements:
> 1. I apologize for not believing Chris & Tyrone & Jolly Roger.
> 2. Because what I said about the ports (even those I always said
>    it was "as far as I know" or "as far as I understand it" or
>    "as far as I can tell", etc., simply happened to be wrong.

First of all, let me say that I am fucking STUNNED.  I NEVER expected you to
apologize for this. 

Now, onto helping you.

> 8. On Windows, type the connection command with the port specified
>    net use Z: \\192.168.1.252:445\LANdrive
>     System error 67 has occurred.
>     The network name cannot be found.

Your syntax is wrong. There is no option to specify the port (:445) in the
standard Net Use command in Windows 10. The error "The network name cannot be
found" is because it is looking for "192.168.1.252:445" which of course is an
invalid IP address

Starting in Windows 11 in 2023, the syntax is as I used:

Net Use \\server\share /tcpport:445

Windows has ALWAYS used port 445 for SMB. It has done this since Windows 2000.
 In fact, until Windows 11 there is no way to change it. If you use the GUI in
Windows Explorer (under the Computer menu, Map Network Drive) you can connect
there too. It assumes port 445 AND there is no option to change it. 

In Windows 11, you CAN specify the port. That is how I knew this SMB Server on
iOS was using port 445. Your net use command worked when you removed the
":445" because it was in fact connecting to port 445.  You just can't specify
that in Windows prior to Windows 11 build 25997.

Again, I am still stunned that you apologized.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194638

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 04:13:39 +0000, Tyrone wrote :


> First of all, let me say that I am fucking STUNNED.  
> I NEVER expected you to apologize for this. 

I'm sorry you were stunned, but I was just dead wrong. 
In my defense, I googled like a frenetic fiend, and I just couldn't find it
stated anywhere by Apple but I already knew that Andriod didn't allow it.

So I thought (wrongly so) that there was something going on by way of
redirection, VPN port tunneling, or port forwarding. 

> Now, onto helping you.

Just so you know, I tried damn hard to prove my point (which would have
proven you wrong) but when I ran all the debugging steps (which took a lot
of work because I don't memorize those arcane commands), everything pointed
to you being 100% correct - and me therefore being 100% wrong in the end.

I acknowledge that only you and Chris actually tried to solve the problem. 
I don't want to deprecate Jolly Roger, but the two of you really tried.

And I appreciate that.
Now we all know a few things for sure, which I (at least) didn't know.

1. While it's widely known non-root Android apps can't bind to privileged
ports, my tests confirmed that what you and Chris said was happening... was
happening.

a. The non-jailbroken iOS app Lan drive was binding to port 445.
b. I was floored when I confirmed that on my own system for myself!
c. At first, I didn't believe it myself - but I ran multiple tests.

It's confirmed.
Unlike Android, iOS apps can bind to port 445.

Who knew?
Not me.
Now I do.

And that's what I care about. I want my assessments based on facts.

>> 8. On Windows, type the connection command with the port specified
>>    net use Z: \\192.168.1.252:445\LANdrive
>>     System error 67 has occurred.
>>     The network name cannot be found.
> 
> Your syntax is wrong. There is no option to specify the port (:445) in the
> standard Net Use command in Windows 10. The error "The network name cannot be
> found" is because it is looking for "192.168.1.252:445" which of course is an
> invalid IP address
> 
> Starting in Windows 11 in 2023, the syntax is as I used:
> 
> Net Use \\server\share /tcpport:445

Oh. I had figured there *must* be a way to specify the port!
Thanks. I need to repeat I'm NOT a networking expert. 
You know more than I do. I just didn't believe you at first. 
Especially since I thought you were nospam (who is a horrid person).

1. Win+R > cmd {ctrl+shft+enter} <== for an admin prompt
2. C:\Windows\system32>net use
   New connections will not be remembered.
   There are no entries in the list.
3. net use \\192.168.1.252\LANdrive /tcpport:445
Yup. I just confirmed you are correct.

The option /TCPPORT:445 is unknown.
The syntax of this command is:
NET USE
[devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]]
        [/USER:[domainname\]username]
        [/USER:[dotted domain name\]username]
        [/USER:[username@dotted domain name]
        [/SMARTCARD]
        [/SAVECRED]
        [/REQUIREINTEGRITY]
        [/REQUIREPRIVACY]
        [/WRITETHROUGH]
        [[/DELETE] | [/PERSISTENT:{YES | NO}]]

NET USE {devicename | *} [password | *] /HOME
NET USE [/PERSISTENT:{YES | NO}]
More help is available by typing NET HELPMSG 3506.

I googled a bit, and it seems you are correct there is no way in Windows 10
to specify the port, which seems quite odd, but, it is whatever it is.

Thanks for letting me know Windows 11 has the option to specify the port.

> Windows has ALWAYS used port 445 for SMB. It has done this since Windows 2000.
>  In fact, until Windows 11 there is no way to change it. If you use the GUI in
> Windows Explorer (under the Computer menu, Map Network Drive) you can connect
> there too. It assumes port 445 AND there is no option to change it. 

I understand. That's why, in fact, it's so hard on Android since you can't
use ports below 1024 and Windows won't let you use any other port but 445.

> In Windows 11, you CAN specify the port. That is how I knew this SMB Server on
> iOS was using port 445. Your net use command worked when you removed the
> ":445" because it was in fact connecting to port 445.  You just can't specify
> that in Windows prior to Windows 11 build 25997.

I have to admit, my thought process was tempered by the fact that Android
couldn't do it, and I couldn't find a single reference that said iOS could.

Also, I know plenty of times Bonjour or mDNS or some other redirection,
proxy, port forwarding or clever VPN port tunneling "can" be done.

So I simply figured it "was" being done.
And that was wrong of me.

I'm sorry for doubting you. 
I made you waste time trying to "prove" it to me, which is a complete waste
of your time. The good news is, together, we proved it to everyone else.

I tried like hell to prove that port 445 wasn't being used.
And yet, it was.

Just like Einstein tried like hell to prove Newton was right, he wasn't.
Newton was wrong. There is no force called gravity.  And nobody has proven
Einstein wrong since, even though it's mind boggling that four dimensional
spacetime is rushing inward toward the center of the earth at 11 km per
second at the same time the earth is expanding at 9.8m/s/s due to
electrostatic forces alone - which gives us all the allusion of gravity.

Which means... shockingly... what we feel as a "force" is nothing more than
the earth accelerating us upward at 9.8m/s/s - which is just mind boggling.

When you truly understand something, you can explain it easily, where in
this case I proved to myself that I was wrong - & you (& Chris) were not.

I apologize for not believing you.
You were right all along, and I was wrong all along.

> Again, I am still stunned that you apologized.

I don't know how to respond other than to ask you to ask badgolferman if
I've ever apologized on this newsgroup for being wrong or doing something
wrong, having been on it for, oh, I don't know, a very long time with God
knows how many technical posts.

While I'm NOT a networking expert, I have multiple degrees in the sciences
and engineering from some of the finest schools in this country (whose
funds are being cut off as we speak); so I'm well aware that what matters
most is testing our assessments (aka hypotheses) and forming our opinions
based on the RESULTS of those tests. Nothing else matters. Just facts.

I tried like hell (so to speak) to prove my statements factually correct;
but the facts clearly showed my initial assumption to be dead wrong.

The iOS Lan drive app truly does bind to port 445. 
I was shocked when I finally figured that out, for myself, only today.

I'm truly sorry I put you through the pain of having to defend yourself.
And Chris too. It was my fault. I should have tested it sooner than I did.

Mea culpa.
Nolo contendere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194645

On Apr 18, 2025 at 12:56:42 AM EDT, "Marion" <marion@facts.com> wrote:

> Oh. I had figured there *must* be a way to specify the port!
> Thanks. I need to repeat I'm NOT a networking expert.
> You know more than I do. I just didn't believe you at first.
> Especially since I thought you were nospam (who is a horrid person).
> 
> 1. Win+R >cmd {ctrl+shft+enter} <== for an admin prompt2.
> C:\Windows\system32>net use
>    New connections will not be remembered.
>    There are no entries in the list.
> 3. net use \\192.168.1.252\LANdrive /tcpport:445
> Yup. I just confirmed you are correct.
> 
> The option /TCPPORT:445 is unknown.
> The syntax of this command is:
> NET USE
> [devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]]
>         [/USER:[domainname\]username]
>         [/USER:[dotted domain name\]username]
>         [/USER:[username@dotted domain name]
>         [/SMARTCARD]
>         [/SAVECRED]
>         [/REQUIREINTEGRITY]
>         [/REQUIREPRIVACY]
>         [/WRITETHROUGH]
>         [[/DELETE] | [/PERSISTENT:{YES | NO}]]
> 
> NET USE {devicename | *} [password | *] /HOME
> NET USE [/PERSISTENT:{YES | NO}]
> More help is available by typing NET HELPMSG 3506.
> 
> I googled a bit, and it seems you are correct there is no way in Windows 10
> to specify the port, which seems quite odd, but, it is whatever it is.
> 
> Thanks for letting me know Windows 11 has the option to specify the port.

For the record, here is the syntax for net use on Windows 11:

NET USE
[devicename | *] [\\computername\sharename[\volume] [password | *]]
        [/USER:[domainname\]username]
        [/USER:[dotted domain name\]username]
        [/USER:[username@dotted domain name]
        [/SMARTCARD]
        [/SAVECRED]
        [/REQUIREINTEGRITY]
        [/REQUIREPRIVACY]
        [/WRITETHROUGH]
        [/TCPPORT:{0-65535}]
        [/QUICPORT:{0-65535}]
        [/RDMAPORT:{0-65535}]
        [/TRANSPORT:{TCP | QUIC} [/SKIPCERTCHECK]]
        [/REQUESTCOMPRESSION:{YES | NO}]
        [/BLOCKNTLM]
        [/GLOBAL]
        [[/DELETE] [/GLOBAL]]]

NET USE {devicename | *} [password | *] /HOME

NET USE [/PERSISTENT:{YES | NO}]

> The iOS Lan drive app truly does bind to port 445.
> I was shocked when I finally figured that out, for myself, only today.
> 
> I'm truly sorry I put you through the pain of having to defend yourself.
> And Chris too. It was my fault. I should have tested it sooner than I did.
> 
> Mea culpa.
> Nolo contendere.

The shock has worn off.  :-)   Apology accepted.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#197313

On Tue, 26 Aug 2025 10:30:19 -0400, badgolferman wrote :


> We had many conversations about
> this and people like the "expert" nospam told us repeatedly Touch ID was
> inferior because it could be duplicated.  I don't even remember you then
> so I don't know what you said.

Hi badgolferman,

As you know, I study these strange abnormally low-IQ Apple trolls.
The Apple trolls are strange people who make no sense save to themselves. 

In the case of Alan Baker, he'll always forget everything he has talked
about if it doesn't fit his defense-of-everything-Apple agenda.

So it doesn't matter one iota that you've discussed this a billion times
with people like Alan Baker because either he's so incredibly low IQ that
he can't remember/understand any facts about Apple, or, he's conveniently
"forgetting" that he's discussed this with you a thousand times.

It's hard to tell since he's so incredibly stupid anyway. 

I've never in my life met someone as dumb as Alan Baker, who doesn't even
know the first thing about anything - not even the cars he says he owns nor
the 'racing' he says he teaches (yet he has no clue what a curve is).

What's DIFFERENT about nospam though, is nospam actually knew stuff.
It was just that nospam lied all the time to defend Apple to the death.

While the end result is the same, the overarching difference is that Alan
Baker actually is incredibly stupid while nospam just brazenly lied.

What's the same is both defended Apple to the death, no matter what.

What's also VERY MUCH TRHE SAME is they both are not intelligent in how
they did it because (and this is important) they NEVER kept the same
argument twice.

What I mean by that is you'll see all my arguments are consistent, e.g.,
privacy or security or strategy, etc., but all the arguments of the Apple
trolls are ad hoc manufactured on the spot - to fit their defense of Apple.

So if Apple does "A" to accomplish "B", both trolls will claim it's for
reason "C"; but if Apple then does "X" to accomplish "Y", then they'll
conveniently claim "Z" was the reason. 

There is no consistency to the arguments of the Apple trolls.
That's because they have low IQ (all of them). 

They simply defend using the first argument that comes to their mind.

Hence, nospam would have said ANYTHING to defend Apple's touch-id changes.
So would Alan Baker. As do all the low-IQ ignorant uneducated Apple trolls.

None are consistent.
Which is how I know that they all have substandard IQs.

They can't keep track of their own arguments. They're that stupid.

If you're trying to have an intelligent conversation with me, for example,
I can keep track of all my arguments because they all make logical sense.

Theirs don't.
Not only that, they don't even REMEMBER their own arguments.

Because they just make up their excuses for Apple on the fly.
Today their excuse for Touch-ID going away is reason X.
Tomorrow it's reason Y.

It's simply the first thing that comes to their mind to defend Apple.
Tomorrow, they'll think of a different excuse & forget the one from today.

Just watch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194639

Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
> 
> Very clearly I am stating these two very clear unequivocal statements:
> 1. I apologize for not believing Chris & Tyrone & Jolly Roger.

Apology accepted. 

> 2. Because what I said about the ports (even those I always said
>    it was "as far as I know" or "as far as I understand it" or 
>    "as far as I can tell", etc., simply happened to be wrong.

I hope you learn from this that:
1. People who disagree with you are not automatically trolls. 
2. Producing your own evidence is more worthwhile that "frenetically
googling" in support of your dogmatic argument. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194640

Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
>> 
>> Very clearly I am stating these two very clear unequivocal statements:
>> 1. I apologize for not believing Chris & Tyrone & Jolly Roger.
> 
> Apology accepted. 

Just noticed. It's very disappointing that this apology was only posted to
the iphone ng when your libelous statements were spread to at least three
ngs. 

My acceptance of your apology is rescinded until you apologise in *ALL* the
ngs you called me a troll - even just by association. 

> 
>> 2. Because what I said about the ports (even those I always said
>> it was "as far as I know" or "as far as I understand it" or 
>> "as far as I can tell", etc., simply happened to be wrong.
> 
> I hope you learn from this that:
> 1. People who disagree with you are not automatically trolls. 
> 2. Producing your own evidence is more worthwhile that "frenetically
> googling" in support of your dogmatic argument. 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#194646

On 2025-04-18, Marion <marion@facts.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2025 16:17:45 -0000 (UTC), badgolferman wrote :
>
>>> Currently there is a disagreement between me and the Apple trolls.
>
>> I'm not sure if this is helpful or harmful¡K.
>> https://support.apple.com/en-us/103229
>
> Thanks. I appreciate you looking. I posted that same link a while ago
> but it doesn't really tell us explicitly what we want to know.
>
> To test what we want to know, I just spent the energy making the
> connection from Windows and copying files and then debugging which
> port was used.
>
> Even though I couldn't explicitly set the port to 445, my debugging
> results show unequivocally that Chris & Tyrone were right. I'm sure
> that Jolly Roger is also right but he never added any value. 

LOL... Little Arlen is sooo mad that I literally showed proof that he
was WRONG about iOS SMB services not using port 445. 🤣 Just like he was
WRONG about iOS not being able to run SMB servers, and WRONG about them
being read-only.

> I was wrong about iOS not allowing apps to bind to ports <1024.

Notice how Arlen didn't apologize for calling you all zealots and trolls
for daring to correct his bullshit, nor did he apologize for claiming
Apple users know nothing or that iOS devices are supposedly dumb
terminals with imaginary functionality. So this one-off apology
doesn't mean much. This behavior will not change. Mark my words, once
this discussion fades away, Arlen will be back with more of his
trolls, insults, and shenanigans. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | misc.phone.mobile.iphone

csiph-web