Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
One comment to the thread subject, rather than to any particular post. We would do well to remember that trying to participate in a mailing list or a newsgroup with an MUA is an inherent contradiction in purpose. Put another way, ordinary e-mail and postings to newsgroups and mailing lists are two rather different kinds of things, even though they share certain common features and have certain features that appear the same but are not. Joel Rees -- http://defining-computers.blogspot.jp/p/what-on-earth-are-internet-service.html
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 10:37:40PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: [...] > > I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so > > if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead! > > Thank you! I accept. Fortunately for you, and sadly for me, I'm not allowed > by my doctors to drink Chateau d'Yquem, so I shall have to toast you in fizzy > mineral water. Wouh. Bad doctors, bad. In my case it's the bankers. No Yquem for us :-( > > Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. > > I do believe you! Though how on earth you managed to sit through what we > were > saying, and especially what I was saying off list, without checking your > headers or settings, does somewhat bemuse me. :-/ > > The trouble is, I know what I mean to type, so that is what I see. > Presumably > you knew what your settings were supposed to be, so that is what you saw. Something like that, yes. Perhaps the root of most stubbornness. > > Hanlon's razor [...] > The older I get, the truer I see that that is. > > I apologise for misspelling your name. That is something I try to be > meticulous about, but I had never till now noticed the accent. Though I had > noticed that you do not use an initial capital. No worries. I moved a couple of times across Europe and my spelling changed accordingly. I don't consider it a part of my personality :-) regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYl5M8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaOOQCeL8hBQsfhVc+je5xopmSUPXKu g/AAniqGQIyMarS2lC6gd3/goV4CJrZh =5XNB -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300 Chris Bannisterwrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas said: > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for > > > this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) > > > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we > > should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as > > possible on our sides). > > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? > A little way, not too far. It's not really a matter of getting one more unsolicited email in this day and age, the point of this kind of list is to stand as an archive, so that the various answers to the questions, and just as importantly, the wanderings down the byways, remain to help others in the future. -- Joe
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Monday 19 October 2015 08:28:16 Joe wrote: > On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +1300 > > Chris Bannisterwrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas said: > > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do > > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for > > > > this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) > > > > > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we > > > should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as > > > possible on our sides). > > > > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? > > A little way, not too far. > > It's not really a matter of getting one more unsolicited email in > this day and age, the point of this kind of list is to stand as an > archive, so that the various answers to the questions, and just as > importantly, the wanderings down the byways, remain to help others in > the future. Quite. And that will only work if people reply to list and do not break the threads. Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 10:41:38PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > > You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible. > > I know it is, but not with a simple three or four line procmail recipe > alone. [...] > > That's right. But you can catch most of it. > > Even if "most" is possible it is not good enough. > > A thread of more recent vintage is at > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00012.html > > There is a technique (and an implementation of it) described which > ensures list mails get to a list folder and CCs are deleted. See what > you think. Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEUEARECAAYFAlYklFoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kawxACdF6eGPwGAm1jjH8MSmB883nlX b2sAmJtoDg2KS/TFhvKhnIFFn8z79So= =z8v8 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Monday 19 October 2015 07:47:53 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > tomas said: > > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky > > > > about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do > > > > his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for this > > > > purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) > > [...] > > > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? > > *sigh* > > I give up. Do whatever you want. Of course Chris will do what he wants, and not what you want. Why should he do anything else? But you are *still* not following the code. You have addressed that to Chris with a cc to the list. You seem to think that you should dictate how the list behaves and that the CoC is an aberration that OUGHT to be ignored. As I said to you, "you are sending them (these double copies) deliberately, and being a nuisance deliberately. Another word for that is trolling." Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. Hallelujah! Thank you, tomas. That went to the list only, with nary a sign of a copy to Brian. Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 04:47:02PM +1300, Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > tomas said: > > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > > *not* > > > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > > > express > > > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* > > > scolding > > > others <:*) [...] > So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out > of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? *sigh* I give up. Do whatever you want. - -- t -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYkkhkACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZiuACfaw5Orylpi4kMM9V5R4HU/srp SLUAni7p9umRSJgIH5NlLhS0GQ3PGnUV =Dqk6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Sunday 18 October 2015 20:21:49 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > [...] > > > tomas said: > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least > > *before* scolding others <:*) > > > > Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed. I have tried to be polite. I > > have asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to > > do it. He tells me I can't. So now I feel free to "scold others". > > Well, be fair :-) I said you can in most of the cases. No you didn't. You said that I should be polite and "express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose", but you have no idea how this can be done. See above. Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. As in a another post of mine where I mentioned that because the list is open then it makes sense to CC a poster if they appear to be newbie and you're not sure if they're subscribed. Also I've seen some posts where the OP has asked to be CC'd and subsequent replies have been to the list only. It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm suggesting that discretion is required. I have seen some threads where the OP has requested help installing Debian and there's been about 10 replies with requests for more information and the OP hasn't replied to any of them, doesn't it make sense to CC the OP in that case, just to at least ensure that no one is 'talking to a brick wall'? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Monday 19 October 2015 09:44:56 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:57:30AM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. > > As in a another post of mine where I mentioned that because the list is > open then it makes sense to CC a poster if they appear to be newbie and > you're not sure if they're subscribed. > > Also I've seen some posts where the OP has asked to be CC'd and > subsequent replies have been to the list only. > > It may seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm suggesting that > discretion is required. I have seen some threads where the OP has > requested help installing Debian and there's been about 10 replies with > requests for more information and the OP hasn't replied to any of them, > doesn't it make sense to CC the OP in that case, just to at least ensure > that no one is 'talking to a brick wall'? At the risk of also seeming to contradict myself, I (almost) agree. I was recently cc'ing someone who was having trouble with emails from the list (as were several other people). But that is quite different from replying personally to everyone who posts to the list, with a cc only to the list because ... Because what? the whole point of a mailing list is that it sends copies to everybody. But the one point where I disagree is the sending a personal copy to anyone who appears to be a newbie. I would want some sort of evidence that it was required. Replying to the list from a personal copy is actually not easy in some email clients. A newbie especially needs access to all the resources of the list. Not replying to requests for information is a common occurrence, that has as much to do with personality as with the destination of emails. And yes, people do sometimes forget to cc someone who has requested it. Kind people then sometimes forward the replies. Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's all. > > Hallelujah! Thank you, tomas. That went to the list only, with nary a sign > of a copy to Brian. Well, that's embarrasing. Turns out I had a mistake in my setup. I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead! Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. Hanlon's razor[1] applies. [1] "Never attribute to malice what can appropriately be explained by stupidity" Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYlDacACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY2wACfQEW4VB/TJhhn352KnlNWHPyZ b+kAn1GjEDCP8wCJ2L2vTUhDB7nNixLE =V4re -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Monday 19 October 2015 16:35:03 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 08:39:13AM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Monday 19 October 2015 07:57:30 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Yes, I'm aware of all that. And I never said the CoC is wrong or should > > > be changed. I'm just advocating for dealing with those who fail this > > > CoC (especially this little technical item) more gracefully. That's > > > all. > > > > Hallelujah! Thank you, tomas. That went to the list only, with nary a > > sign of a copy to Brian. > > Well, that's embarrasing. Turns out I had a mistake in my setup. > > I owe you a $BEVERAGE of your choice (whithin reasonable bounds ;-) -- so > if you run into me in one of the usual conferences, go ahead! Thank you! I accept. Fortunately for you, and sadly for me, I'm not allowed by my doctors to drink Chateau d'Yquem, so I shall have to toast you in fizzy mineral water. > Believe me or not -- it was never my intention to troll. I do believe you! Though how on earth you managed to sit through what we were saying, and especially what I was saying off list, without checking your headers or settings, does somewhat bemuse me. :-/ The trouble is, I know what I mean to type, so that is what I see. Presumably you knew what your settings were supposed to be, so that is what you saw. > Hanlon's razor[1] > applies. > > [1] "Never attribute to malice what can appropriately be explained by > stupidity" The older I get, the truer I see that that is. I apologise for misspelling your name. That is something I try to be meticulous about, but I had never till now noticed the accent. Though I had noticed that you do not use an initial capital. Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > > > discarded. > > > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of > > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably > > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will > > arrive earlier. > > Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail > will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list > mail will probably be disposed of. You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible. > > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where > > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if > > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself). > > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html > > There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in > the list folder, That's right. But you can catch most of it. Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYj8FoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaONgCdEBjXM/jVsRNwIf1aCAWf1j1U IzoAn33qRNJSjs+zO7luvgu2zX2zp/hU =6UtH -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 21:17:46 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 07:55:58PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > > > > discarded. > > > > > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of > > > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably > > > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will > > > arrive earlier. > > > > Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail > > will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list > > mail will probably be disposed of. > > You have to refine your filters a bit, but it's definitely possible. I know it is, but not with a simple three or four line procmail recipe alone. > > > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where > > > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if > > > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself). > > > > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html > > > > There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in > > the list folder, > > That's right. But you can catch most of it. Even if "most" is possible it is not good enough. A thread of more recent vintage is at https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2013/03/msg00012.html There is a technique (and an implementation of it) described which ensures list mails get to a list folder and CCs are deleted. See what you think.
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 09:21:49PM +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > tomas said: > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > *not* > > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express > > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* > > scolding > > others <:*) > > Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we should try > to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as possible on our sides). So you're saying that someone who is following the code should go out of their way to accomodate the ones who won't follow the code? -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 08:10:56PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: [...] > tomas said: > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* > being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express > this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding > others <:*) > > Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed. I have tried to be polite. I have > asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to do it. > He tells me I can't. So now I feel free to "scold others". Well, be fair :-) I said you can in most of the cases. > The CoC says not to send cc's unless specifically requested. It is not a lot > to ask that people should follow the CoC. And I shall start following the > CoC and complaining, off list, every time, to everyone who cc's me. Perhaps > then they will stop this pain of a practice. > > It is perfectly reasonable that people should be asked to do one of three > things: > 1) subscribe > or > 2) read the archives > or > 3) request a copy. Don't take me wrong. I think its reasonable. But I think also we should try to be gentle about it (and try to "fix" as much as possible on our sides). That's all. Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYj8U0ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaY+QCfbQKkq5Id5FpKRTrqtEmHfDTq yoYAnAhMGs4Z+UiAfsz9sK4X2N1Ls2Zr =rY1A -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > > discarded. > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will > arrive earlier. Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list mail will probably be disposed of. > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself). > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in the list folder,
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Sunday 18 October 2015 19:55:58 Brian wrote: > On Sun 18 Oct 2015 at 17:44:55 +0200, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > > > discarded. > > > > The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of > > procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably > > using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will > > arrive earlier. > > Isn't this the essence of the problem? The couple of lines of procmail > will put the first mail ("copy for you") in the inbox. The actual list > mail will probably be disposed of. Yes, it is. > > See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where > > our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if > > you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself). > > > > [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html > > There is nothing there which I can see ensures the list mail ends up in > the list folder, tomas said: Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) Well, I am picky about not being cc'ed. I have tried to be polite. I have asked tomas, who thinks I should do something in my headers, how to do it. He tells me I can't. So now I feel free to "scold others". The CoC says not to send cc's unless specifically requested. It is not a lot to ask that people should follow the CoC. And I shall start following the CoC and complaining, off list, every time, to everyone who cc's me. Perhaps then they will stop this pain of a practice. It is perfectly reasonable that people should be asked to do one of three things: 1) subscribe or 2) read the archives or 3) request a copy. Lisi
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > like a charm. > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * > nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. > This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . We > are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. Yeah, but the silly thing is that the list is open; anyone can post to it, but you only get a reply if you are subscribed. It's been discussed before, and it seems the consensus is that the onus is on the original poster to hunt down the replies via the archives or via google. I honestly don't think many people would do that and more likely think they are being ignored which means ditching Debian for something else particularly if it was an installation problem. Most of us tend to know the regulars on this list and know not to CC them on replies but in the case of where you are not sure and the post seems like it's comming from a newcomer it makes more sense to CC them. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X
Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: [...] We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list. It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has always been well, duh, opinions differ. > You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To? > > http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/ > > Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient. Just because some bloke on the Internet shares your taste it doesn't mean he shares mine. Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjO8kACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY7zgCggYwb0/c5wGcAfTXLExraYBOO 6skAniU4E0mD2S6GR/6hNtbY+IofLcy5 =+PQ6 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > like a charm. > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * > nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. > This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . We > are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. Procmail does a wonderful job of that. Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least *before* scolding others <:*) But harmful and that. Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjPaIACgkQBcgs9XrR2kaZ/QCfdZq+IeVtnEbS6NINvxF6EOiK V1oAni8WIydYt6WXxbjPuU5ltqr1Eohe =EHPh -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
Hi. On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:27:21 +0200wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 11:54:27PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > [...] > > We are seriously off-topic by now. I'd propose to take this off-list. > It has been hashed out to death numerous times and the result has > always been well, duh, opinions differ. > > > You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To? > > > > http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/ > > > > Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient. > > Just because some bloke on the Internet shares your taste it doesn't > mean he shares mine. True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be related to your mutt or postfix configuration somehow. Recp
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:12:53PM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ... > > Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a > severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by > the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an e-mail account > with a cellular telephone number and (2) configuring so-called > "smartphones" to sound an alert when a e-mail is received. E-mail has never been in the interest of Big Corp: it's fairly decentralized, has stable, open standards which are not totally decommoditized[1] and it kinda works. Can't be really monetized (at least not with a high margin). You'll see Big Corp trying to (and perhaps succeeding in) kill e-mail, starting by implementing horrendous clients (Outlook, anyone) and MTAs (won't name names here). This very company is running around my employer (a biggish company too) croaking "Mail is dead!" "Use Tah Cloud!". Well, duh. The case you mention above is just another brick in this wall. Regards [1] http://www.levien.com/free/decommoditizing.html - -- tomas -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjP6oACgkQBcgs9XrR2kawCACeKeTSZq40fNQ7CRwX/TfQyTT6 c+cAnRDEqkivMEx/qbhjoDsEGYxnDHwo =0lkq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 01:07:45PM +0300, Reco wrote: [Mail-Followup-T] > True. The only problem is - this very e-mail I'm replying to does not > contain Mail-Followup-To nor Followup-To :) Without a doubt it must be > related to your mutt or postfix configuration somehow. This is not a problem: *I* don't mind receiving CC. This header is a hint by the sender (in the context of a mailing list) to where (s)he expects the answers to go to. With a sensible mail reader, the responder just has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. So *you* may cc me or not, as stated in my headers (no ...followup-to). Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjtQ8ACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb6ogCfUkv7hBOa0ZHSGnYRR2wy+5qH y/4An3V7MB+NEoJUmNiSxHiifjv3dZXN =diuq -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > With a sensible mail reader, the responder just > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. Yes. That is not the problem. The problem is responders who *deliberately* don't respond to list. You claim to know how to set one's email client to stop people responding personally. My email in response to your last doesn't seem to have got through to the list; perhaps because of the screenshot. So here it is without. On Sunday 18 October 2015 07:35:14 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 10:58:00PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > > > like a charm. > > > > No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * > > nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. > > This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . > > We are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. > > Procmail does a wonderful job of that. > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least > *before* scolding others <:*) Taking that as personally aimed, nothing would give me greater pleasure. I am simply not technically competent enough. I refer above to "my inability to configure KMail correctly". I have a blank page in which to " define custom mime header fields", and an opportunity to use a custom message-id suffix. (See attachment.) What do I put, where, to achieve stopping these wretched cc's from landing in my private mail?? I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be discarded. Lisi
Re: Mailing lists, CC, followup-to, netiquette and all the rest [was: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 04:55:10PM +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Sunday 18 October 2015 16:04:47 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > With a sensible mail reader, the responder just > > has to choose "respond to list" and all is well. > > Yes. That is not the problem. The problem is responders who *deliberately* > don't respond to list. You can't stop those. (OK, the best you can do is "social engineering", aka persuasion :) > You claim to know how to set one's email client to stop people responding > personally. My email in response to your last doesn't seem to have got > through to the list; perhaps because of the screenshot. So here it is > without. [...] > > Yes, you are right about the CoC part. Still, if someone is picky about > > *not* being cc'ed, I'd consider it polite to at least do his/her part and > > express this wish with the headers in use for this purpose. At least > > *before* scolding others <:*) > > Taking that as personally aimed, nothing would give me greater pleasure. I > am > simply not technically competent enough. I refer above to "my inability to > configure KMail correctly". > > I have a blank page in which to " define custom mime header fields", and an > opportunity to use a custom message-id suffix. (See attachment.) > > What do I put, where, to achieve stopping these wretched cc's from landing in > my private mail?? What you can do is, if you care, to set Mail-Followup-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org This should convince most polite MUAs to do the right thing when the user "replies to list". A more drastic measure would be to set Reply-To: debian-user@lists.debian.org That won't kill all cc's: if someone does a "group reply" and/or if the MUA is nasty enough... > I'd also like the copy to the list to land in my list folder, not be > discarded. The ultimate feature is just a duplicate filter (a couple of lines of procmail). You'll have to configure the "mail sorter" (you're probably using KMail) accoringly, because probably the "copy for you" will arrive earlier. See this thread in... debian-user[1], of all things (from 2003) where our ancestors hashed this out already (with some recipes). Just ask if you decide to use procmail (I am, alas, a KMail analphabet myself). [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2003/10/msg05065.html Regards - -- tomás > > Lisi > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYjvncACgkQBcgs9XrR2kZzaACdG9kkfwxs8ACGV64XYcEL8Gvr LoMAn2MkLSUsP9ShxFnrRnUbcOnplO4J =KS/O -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Sat, October 17, 2015 4:58 pm, Lisi Reisz wrote: > And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC ... Speaking of the Code of Conduct, a matter of much greater import is a severe constraint which is being forced upon e-mail users in general by the stupid and widespread practice of (1) associating an e-mail account with a cellular telephone number and (2) configuring so-called "smartphones" to sound an alert when a e-mail is received. One of the great advantages of e-mail is that it allows each party to work at his own convenience. Each party composes messages, reads messages, and replies to messages at a time which is convenient for him, taking little or no thought as to the time zone or time of day of the recipient. But with the advent of the absurd concept by which the smartphone rings whenever an e-mail message is received, some of those with whom I correspond are angered because I frequently dispatch e-mail messages in the wee hours of the morning -- such as 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, and 4 o'clock -- with the result that the smartphone awakens them from sleep. I received a complaint from an associate who happens to be a computer-illiterate physician. When I explained the matter to him, he protested that professional responsibility demands that he answer his telephone whenever it rings, day or night. I replied that he is acting stupidly to have e-mail messages ring a number on which he habitually receives emergency phone calls; and that, moreover, he is acting stupidly to configure his smartphone ring at an inopportune time to announce every e-mail which arrives, unless he has implemented a mechanism to block spam as well as non-critical messages received late-night and early-morning. But the one who complains of being awakened in the middle of the night by an e-mail message is the same one who is fascinated by the ability of "Siri" to recognize simple voice commands. So I see little hope for remedy, other than a routine, daily deluge of e-mail spam which is sent between the hours of midnight and five A.M. until such time as smartphone users tire of being awakened from sleep. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote: > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to > send CC on this list. Reco, before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or the "Mail-Followup-To" header. In a "no subscription required" mailing list it makes some sense to cc the original posters, as one doesn't know whether they'll receive a copy otherwise. Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works like a charm. Regards - -- tomás -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlYilYoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kah4ACfZk9sjZIPREest0ESTwuTmjOW uDAAn38+yPQCQMhxmCMrBP7ooMysWMw+ =Glj+ -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Sat 17 Oct 2015 at 18:51:22 +0300, Reco wrote: > Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a > disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration. > It was about Debian's network configuration. It would be nice if the OP issued a disclaimer that Debian was at all involved in his problem. In the absence of one I'll state that, although the amount of help he received from -user was considerable, Debian had nothing to do with the issue.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:38:02 +0200wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 06:51:22PM +0300, Reco wrote: > > > PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to > > send CC on this list. > > Reco, > > before scolding someone on this, consider setting the "Followup-To" or > the "Mail-Followup-To" header. In a "no subscription required" mailing > list it makes some sense to cc the original posters, as one doesn't know > whether they'll receive a copy otherwise. You mean *this* Mail-Followup-To? http://paul.jakma.org/2009/07/08/mail-followup-to-considered-harmful/ Thanks, but no. Reply-To should be sufficient. Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Hi. On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:09:11 -0400 "John D. Hendrickson"wrote: > Reco wrote: > > Hi. > > > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 > > rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > > >> Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > >> install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > >> consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think > >> also is router) and an ethernet switch. > >> > >> Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > >> 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated > >> an ip address of 192.168.1.201. > > > > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? > > What about printer's MAC? > > > > > >> It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the > >> ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet". > >> > >> Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie > >> (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet > >> (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. > > > > NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task. > > A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient > > for such things. > > > > > >> And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. > >> If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I > >> think that the printer should utilize DHCP. > > > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > > printer uses DHCP for configuration. > > oh this new model supports DHCP has no security A security of a printer is a novel concept indeed. For HP, at least. > all you have to do is print a test page It's not my printer. I would never waste my money for this model. Or any printer made by HP, for that matter. > all questions are answered in the user and serviee manuals Inability to read OP's mail carefully and in detail did you a disservice. You see, OP's problem was not about printer configuration. It was about Debian's network configuration. > which makes me wonder if this is not a fake question posted by and then > supposedly solved by the same person Dear John. While a good conspiracy theory should contain at least some wild accusations, it should also answer "who benefits" question and contain at least one eclectic assertion. Yours in kind of lacking in that regard. PS. You should also consider to configure your e-mail client not to send CC on this list. Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Saturday 17 October 2015 19:38:02 to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Or do as me and configure your procmail to discard duplicates. Works > like a charm. No doubt due to my inability to configure KMail correctly it is a * nuisance. It delivers the private one and discards the one to the list. This is a confounded nuisance. And contrary to Debian Mailing List CoC . We are supposed to cc only if expressly requested to do so. Lisi
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 17:40:57 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:11 pm, Brian wrote: > > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the > > external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have > > much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing? > > No; in the present (original) installation, the address (192.168.100.3) is > assigned to the (Windows desktop) computer, and there is no router. > > But, conceptually, is there anything wrong with assigning a private IP > address to the WAN port of a router? I don't get out much :). Thanks to David Wright for introducing me to WISP and Joe for the clear explanation.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original > printer's address. That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was assigned by the DHCP server of the ISP. > Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if > not, you know what it is. If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything else. However, in another network about a year ago I plugged the WAN port of a Wi-Fi router into the BLUE port of IPCop, and was using NAT and DHCP of the Wi-Fi router together with a wired network on BLUE, so I am confident that this setup is going to work. For me, this has been an enlightening experience; and, from the standpoint of time expended, expensive. I am grateful to have received help from you and the others who frequent this list. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:11:45 +0100 Brianwrote: > > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to > the external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know > I have much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the > offing? > That's an easy one. An ISP unwilling or unable to lease public addresses for all his customers. In the old days, there was just a modem pool, much smaller than the number of customers, but now everyone is online all the time. It's not unusual with the really big domestic ISPs who came to the game too late (or were in the wrong country) to get enough addresses. It also ensures that nobody runs any kind of service, and the other side of that coin is that nobody can try to break in apart from other customers on the same broadcast domain. Less helpdesk hassle. The moral is that if you're changing ISP and you want a public address, make sure first that you'll be getting one. -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 17:47:22 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a > > WAN nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it > > should function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned > > in your OP. > > Perhaps I do not understand, but I (in my revised plan) I intend to > connect the WAN port of the WRT110 to the ethernet port of the > ISP-supplied radio (DHCP ip address 192.168.100.3) and to plug the > computer and printer into the LAN ports of the WRT110. > > My goal is to allow the computer to communicate on the one hand with > the ISP, and, on the other hand, with the printer. > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original printer's address. Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if not, you know what it is. -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On 16/10/2015 09:13, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if not, you know what it is. If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything else. If Windows can do it, so can a router with a DHCP client. My Linksys router is not currently used and is somewhere in my loft, and I can't recall the model number, but it certainly picked up the WAN address by DHCP. I still have a reservation in my DHCP server for it. -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > On Fri, October 16, 2015 2:30 am, Joe wrote: > > Yes, that should work. I believe your initial difficulty was in setting > > the IP address on your computer to one in the same network as the original > > printer's address. > > That, and not understanding that the ip address reported by Windows was > assigned by the DHCP server of the ISP. > > > Probably the router can pick up the outside address by DHCP, but if > > not, you know what it is. > > If the router cannot pick up the outside address, I am in trouble. The > day I was there, the address corresponding to the radio link happened to > be 192.168.100.3, but tomorrow it could be 192.168.100.123 or anything > else. One of the first configuration screens in the router will be the WAN/Internet configuration where the router will need to know if you have to login to the ISP (copy credentials from the Windows machine) and how to get its IP address. Most people will get theirs dynamically from the ISP. The fact that the address they issue is in a private range doesn't make any difference to you if you're not running an external service for the Internet. On the LAN side of the router, it (the router) will run another private network. If you run it on 192.168.100.xx then the fact that it's the same range as the WAN is really no more than a coincidence. They are separate private networks. Personally, I would run 192.168.1.xx on the LAN because (a) I suspect more than half the world does and (b) my router has no DNS server built into it, so I have to maintain /etc/hosts on my machines. I like the numbers there to be instantly and instinctively recognisable as host IP#s. One less thing to remember. Cheers, David.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote: > > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? > > What about printer's MAC? > > Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the > following: > > IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210 > SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0 > DEF. GATEWAY: 192.168.1.1 > LAN HW ADDRESS: 0010835D432B > > I presume that the "LAN HW ADDRESS:" is the mac address. So do I. > > NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task. > > A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient > > for such things. > > Understood; but NetWorkManager is installed by default by the Debian > installer when Xfce is specified in Jessie. Can I make use of > NetworkManager, or ignore it? Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface (eth0 for simplicity). Run (as root): ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. If you see all this - you're good and can proceed with: telnet 192.168.1.210 > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > > printer uses DHCP for configuration. > > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here. I installed tcpdump. I > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67. So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :) Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote: > Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? > What about printer's MAC? Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the following: IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210 SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0 DEF. GATEWAY: 192.168.1.1 LAN HW ADDRESS: 0010835D432B I presume that the "LAN HW ADDRESS:" is the mac address. > NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task. > A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient > for such things. Understood; but NetWorkManager is installed by default by the Debian installer when Xfce is specified in Jessie. Can I make use of NetworkManager, or ignore it? > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > printer uses DHCP for configuration. I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here. I installed tcpdump. I see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I > think also is router) and an ethernet switch. > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which > indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201. > > It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure > the ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand > "telnet". I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while ago, the details are out there somewhere. > > Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie > (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet > (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. > > I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be > required, so I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables > between the laptop and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet > (0.9.10.0) failed to make a connection. Either way should work, only 10Mbit Ethernet connections cannot do this without a crossover cable, and are usually the best ways of talking to a new network device, without other devices adding confusion. Network Manager can be persuaded to create a new fixed IP address configuration to set your laptop to something in the 192.168.1. network. If you do not mark it 'Auto', NM will not attempt to use it without explicitly being told to, or of course you can delete the connection after use. Yes, there are simpler ways to set a fixed address, but if you already have NM running, it is easier to work with it than against it. You can, just about, persuade Win8 to use a fixed address, but NM is far easier. > > So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to > connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage > the connection. Yes. > > And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this > printer. If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP > server, then I think that the printer should utilize DHCP. > A printer, being a server, generally has a fixed IP address, and Windows will need to be given it. Modern printers often have an LCD display through which configurations can be made. I'd expect one with an Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. > At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, > because they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual > inspection is going to necessitate moving things in the office, which > my associate is not going to enjoy. > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see it physically. If this password is unavailable, and it may well still be whatever Google tells you is the factory default for this model, then try setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's. The chances are that the router address pool has a gap of several addresses around that of the router. If you really want to get fancy and you have admin access to the router, you can set the printer to DHCP, note its MAC address and then tell the router DHCP server to make a reservation for a particular address for the printer within its pool. It will then always give this address to the printer, but by DHCP. -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On 15/10/2015 06:34, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think also is router) and an ethernet switch. Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201. It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet". with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a browser, just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at the address the printer gives, this is assuming it does not have a front panel you can access, I dont off hand know the 2100. You will need to adjust the subnet on your laptop of course, but that is all. Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be required, so I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables between the laptop and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) failed to make a connection. So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the connection. And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I think that the printer should utilize DHCP. At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, because they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual inspection is going to necessitate moving things in the office, which my associate is not going to enjoy. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:33 am, Martin Smith wrote: > with most laser printers you can access their control interface with a > browser, just connect your laptop directly to it and point your browser at > the address the printer gives, this is assuming it does not have a front > panel you can access, I dont off hand know the 2100. You will need to > adjust the subnet on your laptop of course, but that is all. No, the hp2100tn has no panel; only a pair of buttons and a few LEDs. And the 2100 may be a little old to have a web administrative interface. I did, after much searching, finally find some information regarding changing parameters using telnet. Using the browser also occurred to me. But the little icon of the NetworkManager Applet kept spinning, so no connection was made. And I tried to create a new network connection in NetworkManager Applet, using 192.168.100.x, but at that point it was getting too late in a long day for me to think clearly. So I am thinking now that my real need is to learn enough about NetworkManager Applet that I can create a new network connection. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 00:34:14 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to > install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) > consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think > also is router) and an ethernet switch. > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated > an ip address of 192.168.1.201. Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? What about printer's MAC? > It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the > ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet". > > Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie > (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet > (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. NetworkManager is unnecessary complex tool for such simple task. A simple sequence of 'ip link set' and 'ip address add' is sufficient for such things. > And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. > If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I > think that the printer should utilize DHCP. You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the printer uses DHCP for configuration. Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote: > I think you just missed it, until Win7 there was a Telnet client. You > can install/enable one (genuine MS) on 8, I have done it but a while ago, > the details are out there somewhere. Installing anything on the other guy's machine is asking for trouble; that is why I brought along my own laptop. And now I have the printer here. I plan not to go back until it is configured. > Either way should work, only 10Mbit Ethernet connections cannot do this > without a crossover cable That is good to know. > Network > Manager can be persuaded to create a new fixed IP address configuration > to set your laptop to something in the 192.168.1. network. If you do not > mark it 'Auto', NM will not attempt to use it without explicitly being > told to, or of course you can delete the connection after use. Understood. That is my project after I get a bit of sleep. >> So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to >> connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the >> connection. > > Yes. That is good to know. > A printer, being a server, generally has a fixed IP address, and > Windows will need to be given it. At the moment, the office has one computer and a USB inkjet printer. It appears to me that not many people today have a laser printer. > Modern printers often have an LCD > display through which configurations can be made. But not the hp2100tn. > I'd expect one with an > Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn. > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the > router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of > network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which > you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see > it physically. I am beginning to regret that I got into this. The modem or modem-router is supplied by a small ISP which serves a rural region. The ISP may not allow the customer to change the configuration. > If this password is unavailable, ... > then try > setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's. I though that likely is the case; the computer is 192.168.100.3, so the router likely is 192.168.100.1, so my plan was to try 192.168.100.2 for the printer. > If you really want to get fancy and you have admin access to the > router, you can set the printer to DHCP, note its MAC address and then > tell > the router DHCP server to make a reservation for a particular address for > the printer within its pool. It will then always give this address to the > printer, but by DHCP. Understood; I have done that from time to time. Thanks, Joe.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 03:45:24 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:18 am, Joe wrote: > > > I'd expect one with an > > Ethernet port to run a simple web server for configuration. > > I have not yet found mention of one regarding the hp2100tn. nmap > > Best not go there... you shouldn't need to disturb anything. If the > > router is indeed running DHCP, and that would be expected in this sort of > > network, then you do really need to know its IP address range, for which > > you will need to login with the admin password, but you don't need to see > > it physically. > > I am beginning to regret that I got into this. The modem or modem-router > is supplied by a small ISP which serves a rural region. The ISP may not > allow the customer to change the configuration. Fit the printer to the router - not the router to the printer. > > If this password is unavailable, ... > > then try > > setting the printer to the address adjacent to the router's. > > I though that likely is the case; the computer is 192.168.100.3, so the > router likely is 192.168.100.1, so my plan was to try 192.168.100.2 for > the printer. The factory defaults for the printer will use DHCP. Let it and the router sort out an address. This involves much less expenditure of time.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Quoting Brian (a...@cityscape.co.uk): > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 14:53:16 +0300, Reco wrote: > > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > > > > > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here. I installed tcpdump. I > > > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67. > > > > So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :) > > Revert the printer to its factory defaults, which will use DHCP. [1] At > the office it will pick up an address from the network it is on. > > [1] HP have instructions on how to do this. If you don't have a manual, download one from https://archive.org/details/printermanual-hp-laserjet-2100-service-manual and read chapters 3 (printer) and 6 (comms troubleshooting). The other page that's useful is http://h20564.www2.hp.com/hpsc/doc/public/display?docId=emr_na-bpj05678 Before you reset anything, get it to print the current configuration that your colleagues may be relying on. Make sure you've got the page- count: were you to hold the Job Cancel button *too* long when you do your factory reset, you would clear this number. There's also a separate network configuration page. The reason I mentioned printing is that the web page above mentions holding a button (Test in this instance) for anything up to 30 seconds. On your printer, that *would* clear your page count. Then do your reset and see whether, when you switch it on and connect it to the router, it automatically finds out what network it's on and what it's address is. Assuming the network card has reset, it *could* come up as 192.0.0.192 (but it shouldn't: DHCP should work). Cheers, David.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 14:53:16 +0300, Reco wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > > > > I brought the printer (and the laptop) back here. I installed tcpdump. I > > see no requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67. > > So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :) Revert the printer to its factory defaults, which will use DHCP. [1] At the office it will pick up an address from the network it is on. [1] HP have instructions on how to do this.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:01 pm, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I > understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose > include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any recommendations as to > brand and model? Is there anything wrong with using an old Wi-Fi router and turning off the radio? (My associate does not care for Wi-Fi.) In my junkbox is a Cisco Linksys WRT110 which can serve four ethernet devices. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the > > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. > > Brian - > > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP > without some sort of routing? It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network in order to communicate. From an earlier post we have Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201 It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for the printer. We will go with that. If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the details. You're welcome. > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP > server of the ISP. > > So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and > configure a router. And force it to obtain that lease from ISP's DHCP, I presume. > My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I > understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose > include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any recommendations as to > brand and model? Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as (and require special training). Cheap models are spyware-ridden. Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on it. Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle. Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware. Of course, you can do it old-fachioned style too - just get another conventional PC with several NICs, and put Debian on it. But reliability of such "solution" is something that's left to be desired (and not because of Debian, of course :). Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300 Recowrote: > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as > (and require special training). Cheap > models are spyware-ridden. > Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to > design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on > it. > Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything > else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle. > > Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless > necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you > are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware. > Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more spyware-ridden than Windows? -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:11 pm, Brian wrote: > An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the > external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have > much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing? No; in the present (original) installation, the address (192.168.100.3) is assigned to the (Windows desktop) computer, and there is no router. But, conceptually, is there anything wrong with assigning a private IP address to the WAN port of a router? Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 5:27 pm, Felix Miata wrote: > An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN > nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should > function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP. Perhaps I do not understand, but I (in my revised plan) I intend to connect the WAN port of the WRT110 to the ethernet port of the ISP-supplied radio (DHCP ip address 192.168.100.3) and to plug the computer and printer into the LAN ports of the WRT110. My goal is to allow the computer to communicate on the one hand with the ISP, and, on the other hand, with the printer. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Reco a écrit : > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > printer uses DHCP for configuration. /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and DHCP requests are sent to the broadcast address 255.255.255.255. 0.0.0.0 is the client source address until it obtains an IP address from the server.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100 > Brianwrote: > > > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match > > > > the network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. > > > > > > Brian - > > > > > > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share > > > one IP without some sort of routing? > > > > It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network > > in order to communicate. From an earlier post we have > > > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which > > indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201 > > > > It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for > > the printer. We will go with that. > > > > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an > > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job. > > > > I assume that was a typo. I believe Windows does allow multiple IP > addresses on one adaptor, but I haven't tried it, and I suspect MS > would describe it as 'unsupported'. If you move the printer into the > 192.168.3. network there must be a risk than another customer of the > same ISP will be given whatever address you choose. Yes. 192.168.100.201
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:03 pm, Joe wrote: > Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK, ... Thanks, Joe. I am saving this email for the next time I need a router. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. Brian - Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP without some sort of routing? Lisi
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote: > Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is >> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the >> DHCP server of the ISP. > If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden > behind desks and boxes ... in the office"? ... > If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there I have no idea what is behind the desks and boxes, except that which I have been told by the ISP. According to the ISP, there is one device connected to an external antenna. The device is a radio receiver (not Wi-Fi) which has a single ethernet jack and delivers a single IP address. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 2:42 pm, Doug wrote: > It should be easy to change, following instructions that came > with the printer. But that is the essence of the problem! The instructions which came with the printer (which are buried in a HP2100TN user manual which I found on line) end with the instruction to insert the HP administration utility CD, which CD I do not have and have not yet found. But even if I had the CD, it almost surely is for an early version of Windows. However, the good news is that when I access the hp2100tn with telnet, the printer advertises several commands, including a listing of current parameter settings and instructions on how to change individual parameters. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:58:21 Brian wrote: > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the > > > network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. > > > > Brian - > > > > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share one IP > > without some sort of routing? > > It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network in > order to communicate. From an earlier post we have > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated > an ip address of 192.168.1.201 > > It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for the > printer. We will go with that. > > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job. Thanks. Lisi
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
rlhar...@oplink.net composed on 2015-10-15 17:06 (UTC-0500): > I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand > the issues. However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow. The > WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing. An internet router with wireless turned off and no connection to a WAN nevertheless remains a functional switch. Thus "unconnected" it should function no differently than the ethernet switch mentioned in your OP. Why you failed with that switch I have no idea. It should have worked, unless one of the ethernet cables was in fact a crossover cable or otherwise a bad cable. With two regular ethernet cables, either original switch or the WRT110 should behave just like a crossover cable connection directly between printer and PC's NIC. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 15:01:01 -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the details. > > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP > server of the ISP. > > So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and > configure a router. No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match the network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. (Martin Smith has already alluded to the same principle).
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:53:29 +0200 Pascal Hambourgwrote: > Reco a écrit : > > > > You do not need to guess here. Run tcpdump at your laptop, power cycle > > the printer. As long as you see requests to 0.0.0.0 udp port 67 - the > > printer uses DHCP for configuration. > > /To/ 0.0.0.0 ? AFAIK, 0.0.0.0 is not a valid destination address, and > DHCP requests are sent to the broadcast address 255.255.255.255. > > 0.0.0.0 is the client source address until it obtains an IP address from > the server. My mistake, thank you for the correction. Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the details. > > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP > server of the ISP. If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden behind desks and boxes ... in the office"? If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there, and your colleague is using wireless, then there's likely to be an unused ethernet socket on it which you should be able to connect to your colleague's computer. If that computer doesn't have one, does it have a plain old parallel port? Bit old-fashioned but there we go. Cheers, David.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > (eth0 for simplicity). > > Run (as root): > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > telnet 192.168.1.210 Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the details. And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP server of the ISP. So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and configure a router. My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but I understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I suppose include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any recommendations as to brand and model? Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100 Brianwrote: > On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 21:44:56 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: > > > On Thursday 15 October 2015 21:38:16 Brian wrote: > > > No you don't. You only have change the printers's setup to match > > > the network it is on. You know how to do that with telnet. > > > > Brian - > > > > Could you give some hints as to how two separate devices can share > > one IP without some sort of routing? > > It isn't a matter of sharing one IP but of being on the same network > in order to communicate. From an earlier post we have > > Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address > 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which > indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201 > > It seems that the consensus is that 192.168.1.201 is a fixed IP for > the printer. We will go with that. > > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job. > I assume that was a typo. I believe Windows does allow multiple IP addresses on one adaptor, but I haven't tried it, and I suspect MS would describe it as 'unsupported'. If you move the printer into the 192.168.3. network there must be a risk than another customer of the same ISP will be given whatever address you choose. -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, October 15, 2015 4:24 pm, Reco wrote: >> Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing >> between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more >> spyware-ridden than Windows? > But since OP has a freedom to choose, > why not choose a good thing instead of known bad one? I have read numerous articles on security and I think that I understand the issues. However, I need a solution, if possible, by tomorrow. The WRT110 is here on my desk; it works and costs me nothing. And I plan to turn off the Wi-Fi radio. Russ
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 15:01:01 -0500 rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: > On Thu, October 15, 2015 6:53 am, Reco wrote: > > Attach Ethernet cable to your laptop and printer via switch. > > > > Ensure that NetworkManager ignores your laptop's Ethernet interface > > (eth0 for simplicity). > > > > Run (as root): > > > > ip l s dev eth0 up ip a a dev eth0 192.168.1.200/24 > > > > "ping 192.168.1.210" should succeed. > > "arping -I eth0 192.168.1.210" should show MAC 00:10:83:5D:43:2B. > > > > telnet 192.168.1.210 > > Reco, this works perfectly. Many thanks for including all the > details. > > And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the > DHCP server of the ISP. > > So in order to accommodate an ethernet printer, I need to install and > configure a router. > > My only experience with routers has been with a PC running IPCop, but > I understand that there are small firmware-based routers, which I > suppose include a firewall and DHCP server. Have you any > recommendations as to brand and model? > Pretty much any of the well-known names should be OK, though I've seen many people speak ill of Belkin. TP-Link probably do the widest range of low-cost network gear. I have a Linksys/Cisco cable router/WAP that's OK apart from flaky firmware concerning RADIUS, but few small networks go there. I picked it for being the cheapest RADIUS-capable WAP I could find... Just make sure it's a cable router i.e. that the WAN connection isn't a DSL modem, they're probably more common in some parts of the world than in the UK, where there's little call for them. You will certainly want NAT and DHCP, but I'd expect all cable routers to do those, and once you have NAT there's no point in leaving out a packet-filtering firewall. It's probably a good idea to have a bit more control of what goes in and out than whatever the ISP provides, which may be nothing. You start getting picky about routers when you need to handle the more exotic protocols, such as VPN and some online games. If your associate is likely to need anything of that kind, you'll need to study the specs and reviews for supported protocols. Something to consider is that the Windows computer can do simple NAT routing, with an additional network card (assuming it's a tower). Last time I tried that was with XP, but it still seems to exist: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows-8/using-ics-internet-connection-sharing The Windows machine will do DHCP, but I think it's hard-coded to one network. This should not be a problem, it used to be 192.168.1.0 in XP days. -- Joe
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Hi. On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:12:58 +0100 Joewrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:57:13 +0300 > Reco wrote: > > > > Stay away from anything made by Cisco. Good models are expensive as > > (and require special training). Cheap > > models are spyware-ridden. > > Stay away from anything made by D-Link. Those people are unable to > > design anything remotely good even if someone's life would depend on > > it. > > Which leaves us with … Trendnet or Asus, I suppose. Or anything > > else you can re-flash with openwrt with minimal hassle. > > > > Last point is crucial. Do not trust router vendor 'firmware' unless > > necessary. In the case of the doubt you put openwrt on it, and if you > > are unable to do so - stay away from that hardware. > > > > Is this much of an issue, given that there is apparently nothing > between Windows 8 and the outside world at the moment? A router more > spyware-ridden than Windows? I agree that anything including D-Link instead of a router would be an improvement over a current situation. But since OP has a freedom to choose, why not choose a good thing instead of known bad one? Reco
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100 > Brianwrote: > > > > If the printer is to communicate with the computer it needs to have an > > IP like 192.168.100.3.201. Change its IP with telnet. A moment's job. > > > > I assume that was a typo. I believe Windows does allow multiple IP > addresses on one adaptor, but I haven't tried it, and I suspect MS > would describe it as 'unsupported'. If you move the printer into the > 192.168.3. network there must be a risk than another customer of the > same ISP will be given whatever address you choose. It is related in https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/10/msg00722.html that ... it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the DHCP server of the ISP. An ISP hands out an address in a private range and it is assigned to the external interface of a router? I do not understand this but know I have much to learn about networking. Any enlightenment in the offing?
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > On Thu, October 15, 2015 3:59 pm, David Wright wrote: > > Quoting rlhar...@oplink.net (rlhar...@oplink.net): > >> And it turns out (according to the ISP out there) that my associate is > >> receiving via a radio link a single address (192.168.100.3) from the > >> DHCP server of the ISP. > > If you really mean this, then what are the devices that "are hidden > > behind desks and boxes ... in the office"? > ... > > If, as seems more likely, there's some sort of router back there > > I have no idea what is behind the desks and boxes, except that which I > have been told by the ISP. According to the ISP, there is one device > connected to an external antenna. The device is a radio receiver (not > Wi-Fi) which has a single ethernet jack and delivers a single IP address. Ah, I misunderstood your first post as you wrote they. It sounds a bit like my uncle in Virginia where the local computer shop transmits a signal to the few people in the village who have the internet. It might be what they call Wisp. Sounds to me like your spare router is a good solution. As it's just a router, not one of those combined modem/routers (which I don't like), it's easy to disconnect your colleague's computer and attach the router's WAN in its place. You might want to configure the wireless anyway so that you can use it yourself when you're there, turning it off when you leave. Cheers, David.
Re: direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
On 10/15/2015 07:53 AM, Reco wrote: On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 02:54:31AM -0500, rlhar...@oplink.net wrote: On Thu, October 15, 2015 1:30 am, Reco wrote: Did this 'configuration report' mention the netmask used by printer? What about printer's MAC? Yes; the title is "JetDirect Configuration Page", which provides the following: IP ADDRESS: 192.168.1.210 SUBNET MASK: 255.255.255.0 DEF. GATEWAY: 192.168.1.1 LAN HW ADDRESS: 0010835D432B I presume that the "LAN HW ADDRESS:" is the mac address. So do I. /snip/ So the printer uses statically assinged IP. This simplifies things :) Reco I have experience with two HP LaserJets and one Epson All-in-One inkjet, and all came with fixed IP addresses from the factory, in the range above 192.168.1.100. One came with .130, one with .147. one with .120. In your case, the fixed IP is .210. It should be easy to change, following instructions that came with the printer. Set the new IP address somewhere betwween .5 and .29 and all will be well. (Then you need to set the computer to look for that address when asked to print.) --dm
direct ethernet connection between computer and printer
Yesterday in the office of my associate, I tried without success to install a HP LaserJet 2100TN in a wired local area network (LAN) consisting of nothing but a i386 running Windows 8, a modem (which I think also is router) and an ethernet switch. Through Control Panel, I learned that the computer had ip address 192.168.100.3. The HP2100 printed a configuration report which indicated an ip address of 192.168.1.201. It occurred to me to use telnet to access the printer and reconfigure the ip address. But the Windows command prompt did not understand "telnet". Thereupon I connected directly to the printer a laptop running Jessie (with Xfce desktop), using an ethernet cable. NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) did not make a connection. I though that perhaps a "cross-over" ethernet cable might be required, so I placed an ethernet switch and two "straight" cables between the laptop and the printer; but again NetworkManager Applet (0.9.10.0) failed to make a connection. So first of all I would like to know whether it is possible to connect a computer directly to a printer without a router to manage the connection. And then I would like to know the proper way to reconfigure this printer. If the "modem" indeed has an internal router with DHCP server, then I think that the printer should utilize DHCP. At the moment I am ignorant concerning the modem and/or router, because they are hidden behind desks and boxes, so that visual inspection is going to necessitate moving things in the office, which my associate is not going to enjoy. Russ
Re: Direct ethernet
Tommy McCabe wrote: I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) That is just like a 'card'. It is just built into your PC and you can not 'tear it out' like a regular card. But you access it like it was one. Even windows thinks it is a ehternet-card. If you look in Win-NetworkNeighborhood-Properties you might get some clues which chip is on that 'card' and that might help you to install it in linux. HTH, Stefan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Direct ethernet
I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) that connects to a cable modem which is connected to the Internet and another computer. The Internet works fine via Windows, but Debian won't access anything. Everything points to an Ethernet card (which I don't think I have and even if I did it's buried in my computer). I tried running Etherconf, but even after I installed it, it didn't work (it said there was no such command, but apt-get said it was already installed). HELP!!! PS I'm not subscribed to the mailing list to spare hundreds of emails daily, but I will be searching the Internet archives. _ Get MSN 8 Dial-up Internet Service FREE for one month. Limited time offer-- sign up now! http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Direct ethernet
Tommy McCabe wrote: I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) that connects to a cable modem which is connected to the Internet and another computer. The Internet works fine via Windows, but Debian won't access anything. Everything points to an Ethernet card (which I don't think I have and even if I did it's buried in my computer). I tried running Etherconf, but even after I installed it, it didn't work (it said there was no such command, but apt-get said it was already installed). HELP!!! PS I'm not subscribed to the mailing list to spare hundreds of emails daily, but I will be searching the Internet archives. Four Steps: 1. Find the correct driver/module for your ethernet card. 2. Insert the module 3. Configure addressing (dhcp or static) 4. Restart networking. 1. Run lspci; look for a reference to an ethernet card (yes, you do have an ethernet card -- really it's just circuitry on the motherboard in your case, which is getting more and more common, even for desktop machines). What does it say? Here are a couple of examples: 00:09.0 Ethernet controller: Lite-On Communications Inc LNE100TX (rev 20) 02:0f.0 Ethernet controller: 3Com Corporation 3c905C-TX/TX-M [Tornado] (rev 78) The first example is a bit generic, and might take some more research. The second is easy to deal with. You'd find the corresponding driver for your ethernet card. Look in /lib/modules/[kernel version]/kernel/drivers. For example, on this machine, to find the version of the kernel I'm running: enjae[westk]:/home/westk uname -a Linux enjae 2.4.18-k7 #1 Sun Apr 14 13:19:11 EST 2002 i686 GNU/Linux Then: enjae[westk]:/home/westk ls /lib/modules/2.4.18-k7/kernel/drivers/net/ which shows the following files: 3c501.o arlan.o es3210.one3210.o slhc.o 3c503.o at1700.oeth16i.oni5010.o slip.o 3c505.o atp.o ethertap.o ni52.o smc-mca.o 3c507.o bonding.o ewrk3.o ni65.o smc-ultra.o 3c509.o bsd_comp.o fc ns83820.o smc-ultra32.o 3c515.o cs89x0.ofealnx.opcnet32.o smc9194.o 3c523.o de4x5.o hamachi.o plip.o starfire.o 3c527.o de600.o hamradioppp_async.ostrip.o 3c59x.o de620.o hp-plus.o ppp_deflate.o sundance.o 8139cp.odefxx.o hp.oppp_generic.o tlan.o 8139too.o depca.o hp100.o ppp_synctty.o tokenring 82596.o dgrs.o ibmlana.o pppoe.otulip 8390.o dl2k.o irdapppox.otun.o ac3200.odmfe.o lance.o rcpci.ovia-rhine.o acenic.odummy.o lne390.orrunner.o wan aironet4500_card.o e2100.o lp486e.osb1000.o wavelan.o aironet4500_core.o eepro.o mii.o shaper.o wd.o aironet4500_proc.o eepro100.o natsemi.o sis900.o winbond-840.o appletalk eexpress.o ne.osk98linwireless arcnet epic100.o ne2.o sk_mca.o yellowfin.o arlan-proc.oeql.o ne2k-pci.o skfp In the case of the 3com card listed earlier, the driver I'm interested in is the 3c59x.o driver. 2. First run lsmod to make sure the module is not already inserted in the kernel. In the case of the LNE100TX card listed above, the correct module is the tulip driver. lsmod on this box shows: tulip 37632 1 which shows that the tulip module is already loaded. You can manually load the correct module with the command modprobe driver, like modprobe tulip or modprobe 3x59x. If that works, you'd then want to add a single line 3c59x to /etc/modules so it'll be loaded on future boots. Being built-in, you might have an Intel EtherExpress chipset, so you'd probably want the eepro driver or one of it's variants. You'll likely have to do a bit of research on this. Windows' Device Manager might give you a clue, or Knoppix would almost certainly give you the correct module name (use lsmod at a command prompt, assuming Knoppix works with your ethernet card - if it doesn't, Debian's not likely to work with it either). Alternatively, you can run modconf, which is a menu-driven app, and you can insert the 3c59x module with this app, which will also modify /etc/modules for you so you don't have to. 3. Now that the proper module has been inserted into the kernel, you need to configure the network card interface. You'd do this by editing /etc/network/interfaces. Assuming you're using DHCP, and this is the only network card you have, you'll need a stanza that looks like: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet dhcp 4. Now just restart networking. You could reboot, but it's easier just to issue the commands: /etc/init.d/networking stop /etc/init.d/networking start -- Kent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe
Re: Direct ethernet
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 07:14:58PM -0400, Tommy McCabe wrote: I have a direct ethernet connection (no visible card, wire just plugs into computer) that connects to a cable modem which is connected to the Internet and another computer. The Internet works fine via Windows, but Debian won't access anything. Everything points to an Ethernet card (which I don't think I have and even if I did it's buried in my computer). I tried running Etherconf, but even after I installed it, it didn't work (it said there was no such command, but apt-get said it was already installed). HELP!!! PS I'm not subscribed to the mailing list to spare hundreds of emails daily, but I will be searching the Internet archives. I recommend you run lspci, that should list your hardware. It will give you something like this: 00:00.0 Host bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8753 [P4X266 AGP] (rev 01) 00:01.0 PCI bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8633 [Apollo Pro266 AGP] 00:08.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT86C100A [Rhine] (rev 06) 00:09.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL-8029(AS) 00:0a.0 Multimedia audio controller: Creative Labs SB Live! EMU10k1 (rev 07) 00:0a.1 Input device controller: Creative Labs SB Live! MIDI/Game Port (rev 07) 00:11.0 ISA bridge: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT8233 PCI to ISA Bridge 00:11.1 IDE interface: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82C586/B/686A/B PIPC Bus Master IDE (rev 06) 00:11.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 1b) 00:11.3 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 1b) 00:11.4 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB (rev 1b) 00:12.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT6102 [Rhine-II] (rev 70) 01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc Radeon RV200 QW [Radeon 7500] In this case my built-in ethernet controller is identified as: 00:08.0 Ethernet controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT86C100A [Rhine] (rev 06) all I have to do is load the via-rhine module to get ethernet to work. If you can't figure things out, please reply and attach the output of lspci so that we can recommend a course of action. Hope that helps, Bijan -- Bijan Soleymani [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.crasseux.com signature.asc Description: Digital signature