On 6/20/07, Adam Sills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tell me how those differ?
They don't. I don't recall saying otherwise.
My point was that if a client tries to connect to port X on a server and the server receives the connection but doesn't do anything with it causing the client to time out, that would indicate that port was able to be connected to because it wasn't actively refused.
No it wouldn't. Timeout means nothing is there...period. This is where you're mistaken. A timeout says "you haven't reached a thing", whereas "Actively refused" means, "yeah, I'm back here, but I'm not listening on that port". Go to the command prompt and telnet to some port you know is listening...it succeeds, of course. Now, shut down the service and try it. This will cause a relatively quick failure (connection refused). Now, block the port with the Windows firewall. This will cause a hang for a couple of minutes, followed by an error (timeout). I just tried these tests to several different machines and ports and the results are invariable. Timeout means "nothing is there", which is precisely what a firewall should (and does, in my experience) cause when a port is blocked. This is my last post. Feel free to have the last word. p.s. - I'm talking general networking here, not the specific remoting scenario. Apologies to the OP. -- Steve Johnson =================================== This list is hosted by DevelopMentor® http://www.develop.com View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://discuss.develop.com
