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 tw
-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
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
-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 th
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
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 a
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
-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 fo
On Monday 19 October 2015 08:28:16 Joe wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +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* bein
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 abou
On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 16:47:02 +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/he
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:
> > >
-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*
> > > bein
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 pur
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 t
-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:
[...]
>
-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 f
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
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
> procm
-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 th
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
-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
Hi.
On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 08:27:21 +0200
wrote:
> -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 time
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
-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 *t
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
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
75 matches
Mail list logo
