From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_034B_01C68C70.EB192FC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   For dial-up it is even easier, disable the client for Microsoft =
networks or whatever is called.  The only reason to suggest blocking =
ports is that you may want to support this on your home LAN but not over =
the Internet.  Blocking incoming ports has no relevance.

Rich

  "Mike N."  wrote in message =
news:9h8l825bp147mq855kihga3ufbe303ffp8{at}4ax.com...
  On Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:59:51 -0700, "Rich"  wrote:

  >  If you want accurate information, look to the bulletin at the URL I =
provided.

    Accurate perhaps, but incomplete for Win 98.  Several friends I know =
of
  using Win98 also use dial up.   It doesn't say anything about port 139
  inbound.   Is it also necessary to block 139 inbound?
------=_NextPart_000_034B_01C68C70.EB192FC0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   For
dial-up it is even =
easier, disable=20
the client for Microsoft networks or whatever is called.  The only
= reason=20
to suggest blocking ports is that you may want to support this on your = home LAN=20
but not over the Internet.  Blocking incoming ports has no=20
relevance.
 
Rich
 

  "Mike N." <mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>">mailto:mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net">mike{at}u-spam-u-die.net>
=
wrote in=20
  message news:9h8l825bp14=
7mq855kihga3ufbe303ffp8{at}4ax.com...On=20
  Fri, 9 Jun 2006 19:59:51 -0700, "Rich" <{at}> =
wrote:>  If=20
  you want accurate information, look to the bulletin at the URL I=20
  provided.  Accurate perhaps, but incomplete for Win =
98. =20
  Several friends I know ofusing Win98 also use dial
up.   =
It=20
  doesn't say anything about port 139inbound.  
Is it also =

  necessary to block 139 inbound?

------=_NextPart_000_034B_01C68C70.EB192FC0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5