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 *
> nuisa
-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
> seve
-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 c
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
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.
Th
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:38:02 +0200
wrote:
> -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 th
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
-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" h
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 wi
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 unde
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 corr
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 networ
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
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:11:45 +0100
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?
>
That's an easy one. An
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 tha
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
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) inst
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 understan
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 wire
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
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 mea
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100
> Brian wrote:
> >
> > 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 beli
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
On Thu 15 Oct 2015 at 22:10:43 +0100, Joe wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100
> 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 mat
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.
>
Hi.
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:12:58 +0100
Joe wrote:
> 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
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:58:21 +0100
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 teln
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
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
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):
> >
> > i
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
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 (a
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
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 mode
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 21:53:29 +0200
Pascal Hambourg wrote:
> 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,
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 r
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 in
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
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.
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 Pa
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.
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 th
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.
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
> fol
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 troub
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
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 acce
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: 192.1
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.
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
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
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
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
Ether
53 matches
Mail list logo
