[FFmpeg-user] Resolve (was Re: key frame)

[Mark Filipak]

On 29/06/2024 20.58, Rob Hallam wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 23:37, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.imdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 29/06/2024 18.19, Rob Hallam wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 at 22:35, Mark Filipak <markfilipak.imdb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Only if your router is misconfigured to let all ports through to your
>>>>> internal network by default.  If it does, then a relatively uncommon
>>>>> piece of MPEG software will be the least of your problems.

Contrary to what is shown above, I did not write that.

>>>> That is not true, and if Oliver used his head, he'd know it's not true.
>>>> 1 - Blackmagic is not reprogramming routers to allow ports into LANs. Ports are allowed in by default.
>>>
>>> Thought experiment for you:
>>>
>>> Suppose that is true, and I install Resolve on two of my PCs, and one
>>> of BMD clients who has had access sold to them -- as you put it --
>>> tries to connect to my address over IPv4 to one of those ports. Which
>>> PC would answer the connection? Same question, different phrasing: to
>>> which device's port would it go?
>>
>> To the port of the IP that the remote system supplies. If there are two systems, A and B, and the
>> remote user addresses A over that port, then A is accessed. If on the other hand, the remote user
>> addresses B over that port, then B is accessed. A and B have differing IP addresses. They are on the
>> same LAN, but they have 2 differing IPs. For example, a class C LAN can have up to 255 computers on
>> the LAN, but each computer has a different IP address.
> 
> Therein lies the rub: neither A or B are publicly addressable[1]. So
> as Oliver correctly mentioned, it's down to what your router does,
> assuming you have one.

Everything is down to what your router does. The world knows you by the IP that your ISP has 
assigned. The only way that A or B are not publicly addressable is if you're not connected to the 
Internet. 192.168.0.xxx does not route to the Internet. Do those 4 statements fit together in your 
mind? If not, ask. But this is networking 101 and I don't want to spend time explaining things that 
probably don't need explaining.

> That being the case, it was unkind of you to say (' ') he should use his head.

What's the alternative? Either you believe someone that you don't know, or you learn about 
technology and decide for yourself. I didn't mean to be unkind to anyone. That's not a criticism. 
It's just plain fact.

> You mention in another message to z! that you would need >1 IP or
> NAT/port for mapping and you knew about non-routable addresses, so why
> pretend what he was saying was incorrect?

By non-routable addresses, you mean the class-C LAN IP addresses (i.e., 192.168.0), right?
That doesn't have anything to do with anything.

>>>> Don't listen to Oliver or Phil or Jim or others. They are far too permissive and ignorant. Use your
>>>> own head.
>>>
>>> Lots of programs listen on inbound ports:
>>>
>>> $ lsof -i -n | grep vlc
>>> vlc       1657953   rob  11u  IPv4 40096648      0t0  TCP *:8080 (LISTEN)
>>> vlc       1657953   rob  12u  IPv6 40096649      0t0  TCP *:8080 (LISTEN)
>>
>> Not on my system.
> 
> Your choice. I quite like being able to access systems via ssh,
> websites over http[s]...

I access web sites and other people's computers and servers in their demilitarized zones via SSH all 
the time. Is there a reason you mention it? Do you think that blocking all the inbound ports would 
affect that?

> As a general heads-up: you have had a number of detractors on this
> mailing list for quite a while ...

Rob, I have no idea why I have the detractors. Nor do I care. They're just noise to me. For example, 
I like Paul. He makes me laugh. He'll help me, and then he'll go tweekie and attack me. I don't know 
why. It doesn't matter.

>... though
> you've also had people who listen to you and want to help you get to
> the bottom of the longstanding cutting/joining issue. But it seems to
> me that you're going in the direction of, "screw 'em all, good or bad,
> helpful or otherwise- I'll argue with each and every one of them!".

I honestly don't argue, or, I don't mean to argue, or, I don't know it can be interpreted as 
arguing. I ask for facts, not notions. And I supply facts as I know them, not notions. I've seen 
quite a number of folks who know next to nothing, who go on to mislead other folks. I don't know 
whether they're being malicious.

Years ago, when I first joined ffmpeg-user, I asked people to give me FFmpeg command lines that 
work. They didn't have to be any particular commands, and I asked that people not bother to explain 
them. All I asked is that they work. I said I would look at them, correlate them, and that would 
help me figure out how to 'talk' to FFmpeg.

I was viciously attacked and someone actually gave me a shell command that would have wiped out all 
the 3-letter directories in the root of my system disc. Well, I don't run FFmpeg in Linux, so the 
joke was on them, but it was vicious. I knew at that point that I was going to get very little help 
here. Given that and the quality of FFmpeg documentation, well, I've been years getting to know how 
to effectively use FFmpeg. The person who has helped me the most is Gyan.

> You didn't say or 'say' this, but it's the impression I'm getting, at
> least. Maybe you don't care anymore, but maybe you don't realise this
> is how you are coming across now, intentions notwithstanding.

I never cared. You are naturally projecting your feelings on me as though you were the butt of the 
attacks. I think ffmpeg-user is pretty pathetic. But, it's exactly the way the FFmpeg developers 
want it to be. Otherwise, they would do something and it wouldn't be the way it is.

> That was intended as a friendly heads-up but I appreciate it may not
> seem like that. How you use that information and respond is, like the
> way you administer your computer and the software you use, your call.
> 
> Cheers,
> Rob

Be happy -- Mark.