Messages

ISPs are free to do anything they choose with blocklists, and some do choose to use spam lists to block all connections.  I make no claim to understand why they would do so.  Similarly, if an ISP is filtering all ports to a particular IP address, there would be no reason for it to be listed in the postmaster system you linked to.  The real test for the mail is whether or not you receive new post notifications from this forum when subscribed to do so, and whether or not you can attempt to send to a random address @bchemnet.com (which should result in a failure notice due to invalid address).  That explicitly tests both directions of the connection, at least via that particular mechanism.

Your nmap scan is inconclusive.  If my provider were blocking your connections entirely, you would not receive open port notices.  Therefore, some sort of more specific filtering is going on, but nmap would be unable to resolve the source of that filter.  Both my provider and their server host maintain that they do absolutely no filtering of any kind based on IP and domains (I have exchanged several messages with them recently), and my particular server is also not configured to do so.

At this point, the only thing I can do is to suggest that those having trouble connecting bring it up to their providers, to at least find out if they claim to be doing any blocking.  I have already investigated the issue as far as I am able to at my end, and the conclusion is that there should not be any connection issues.  As I already stated, overall traffic to the site has not significantly changed since I moved providers, so this is affecting only a small number of people and I don't see any obvious pattern (admittedly, the sample size of known people affected is very small).  If connection issues persist, there are public proxies that can be used to work around the problem - which I concede is annoying, but also not my fault.

It would therefore appear that my UK provider (but not my Spanish one) uses this list.

Unfortunately I very much doubt that my provider is going to remove the IP from their list.

You should encourage your provide to stop using the APEWS list at all, as the majority of all IP addresses on the web have at one time or another appeared on the list.  This list has received considerable criticism from the community since shortly after it was first launched, see for example:
http://www.dnsbl.com/2007/08/apews-news-and-commentary-roundup.html
http://www.dnsbl.com/2007/08/what-to-do-if-you-are-listed-on-apews.html

(Although almost 6 years old, it appears that these are still the references that most administrators point to when having issues with the list.)

I hate to say it, but it really is up to the web site owner to get it resolved, just the same as if you have a mail server that is blocked.

Yes, but which website?  The list is blocking over 65,000 addresses with that single entry, affecting up to a million websites.  Which one is the problem?  The list doesn't say, and elsewhere explicitly states that they do not reply to inquiries.  How is it possible to resolve the issue with such a ridiculously broad block?

Moreover, why are ISPs blocking access to the website based on a blocklist related to spam?  Blocking email using this list would be one thing (although still a bad idea in my opinion), but the inability to access the site at all is absurd.  Very few ISPs appear to be using the list (I have not noticed a significant drop in total site visits or downloads since switching my host - and I have confirmed that my previous IP address was not on the list), so it is something that should be pointed out to those ISPs that do appear to be using it.

I have no doubt that someone in that block of IP addresses is a spammer, based on simple odds.  However, it is telling that no other blacklist includes my particular IP address, nor in fact any IP address in the same range that belongs to my hosting provider.  (As I indicated above, the block is actually applied to the entire server company that my provider is using.)

Try installing a different version driver (different suld-driver-xxx package) that supports your printer.

You can determine the driver (assuming you are actually using the Samsung one and not foomatic or some other driver if you are accepting an automatic install) by changing which suld-driver-xxx package you have installed.

This post probably applies to your situation:
http://www.bchemnet.com/suldr/forum/index.php?topic=132.msg604#msg604

I suspect I have tracked down why a few people are having connection issues since I switched hosts.  My IP address is listed on the APEWS blocklist, and a small number of ISPs use this list to block all traffic to those IP addresses.  A few also block only mail (I suspect a number of users are having this problem, but don't realize it).  Theoretically everyone on the APEWS blocklist is a spammer.  This blocklist is terrible, because it is far too broad and there is no mechanism to appeal.  APEWS lists all IP addresses ultimately associated with singlehop, which is a major server provider and reseller to smaller host providers.  My particular host provider does not host any spammers, but this overly broad block encompasses all sites associated with my provider because they happen to use servers that reside in the same building as someone else who may be spamming.  This is the only blocklist that is so all-encompassing and includes my IP address.

Please check with your ISP as to whether they use the APEWS blocklist, and encourage them to stop doing so if they are.  Because the timeout errors are not due to anything controllable at my end of the connection, there is nothing that I can do to resolve the issue (except for me to attempt yet another host shift, a fairly serious expense in terms of both money and time that I'm not particularly interested in).

- edit /etc/sane.d/xerox_mfp.conf to add:
# Samsung CLX-3305
usb 0x04e8 0x3456

- edit /lib/udev/rules.d/40-libsane.rules to add:
# Samsung CLX-3305
ATTRS{idVendor}=="04e8", ATTRS{idProduct}=="3456", ENV{libsane_matched}="yes"

The above piece is what enabled your scanner.  I will add this to the list of printers that the packages trigger xerox_mfp support for now that you have shared the ID information.  I thought the CLX-3305 was already included, but apparently not.

I'm not sure why you see two scanners, but that seems to occasionally occur.

I have confirmed that there are no blocks by IP address or using any block lists by either my particular setup or my host provider.

It won't work with any of the information on this page or this repository.  Your only option for the Raspberry Pi is the SpliX driver.  You can either download and compile yourself, or pull from a distribution which provides it for the Pi architure (arm/armel), such as Debian.

If you can't get SpliX working (I can find scattered reports that it seems to work for some printers on the Raspberry Pi), you cannot use the CLP-510 with it.  No other driver option is available with the correct architure (that's why you get the error you report when installing packages from here or Samsung).

You can find the information you need to remove anything you have installed using the links above, depending on which method you used.

If by "printer isn't recognized" you mean that you can't even set up the printer to configure it, then the problem is with the USB detection.  Sometimes just switching the USB port in use can clear that problem.

If you are connecting to the printer over the wireless network, it could be a network connection issue.  Can you ping the printer?

You can install suld-driver-3.00.90 (or any other), and any other necessary changes in the packages will automatically resolve.

It's not something I'm blocking.  However, your IP address (presumably within a larger block) shows up on the SBL Spamhaus block list (as well as a few others), so it is possible that either my provider or someone between you and my provider is blocking your address based on that list.

You can see the blocklists using this site: http://whatismyipaddress.com/

I will check with my new provider to see what lists they use to block, but the long-term fix is for you to contact your ISP to have them start the process of getting off the blacklists.

I have not considered releasing the repository on a CD.  I don't think it is "stable" enough to justify that.  Although it's a little hard for to judge, because I don't usually hear from the people everything just works for.

Ideally this could be included with distributions directly, but the lack of source code prevents that.

Try removing the driver, then installing it using the repository.

Try going back to the previous version you had installed.

It should be working again.

It's probably a USB issue rather than the printer driver - CUPS is not detecting the printer.  Try using a different USB port.  There was also a libusb update when the freeze lifted, so it is possible that is related.

Have you tried different driver versions?

(Moved to the new board dedicated for the scanner server.)

I'll fix it shortly, thanks.

Moving this to a dedicated topic.

Thanks for this great work. I installed version 0.3.0 on my laptop, but I have some little issues with my samsung SCX-4623FW .

Try the latest version (0.4.1) available in the repository as suld-scantopc.  It may not solve your problem, but that's the fastest solution if it does.

Is it right, that I only have to add a line to my xerox_mfp-smfp.conf like this:

# My Scanner
tcp 192.168.75.113

and the scanner will be found?

I believe so.  You may need to include a port number after the IP address; you can try it without first and see if it works.

There aren't clear instructions anywhere on how to do this because I don't have them either, just suggestions that it is possible.  If you get it working and report back with exactly what worked, I will update my resources with that information.

Sounds like either a hardware problem or an issue with the USB subsystem.  If it worked with an earlier version of Ubuntu, it's a bug you should file through Launchpad.  Same if the printer works hooked up to another computer and you can generally use USB devices on your computer.

The crash with the older configurator makes me suspect a system bug somewhere, because the older version has generally been stable and it's the new one that is less reliable.

I don't expect Samsung to release any further 4.00.xx driver versions.  And for the last 18 months or so, they have only released any new versions in parallel with introduction of a new printer.  Therefore, I don't expect a new 4.01.xx driver before fall, or possibly even next spring, unless Samsung decides the bugs are severe enough to justify a special release.

However, for your purposes, the lack of updates is not important.  The 4.00.39 driver should continue to work for at least a couple of years, probably much longer, before some system update starts to cause problems with it.

Quick response (I can look at this in more detail later if this doesn't fix it): try different suld-configurator packages.  That's where smfpscan comes from, so changing the driver version (probably) won't have any effect.

As to your question about where you can find out about options: there isn't any such list I'm aware of, and for the most part your examples cover the important bits.

One small issue: the package update just start the service instead of doing a restart. So after the upgrade the old daemon keeps running.

I'll fix that.

Another problem I found is that at least with my scanner I have to use suld-driver-4.00.39. With suld-driver-4.01.17 the multi-page scan does not work: the scanner does not use the document feeder and instead just scans the page inside the scanner.

If all the driver versions worked correctly, I would not need to package 7 versions....  But 4.01.17 in particular involved lots of changes, so I'm not entirely surprised it appears to quite full of bugs.  It's particularly unfortunate that I cannot even do basic testing on it because of Samsung's decision to drop support for my printer.  My general policy when they make major changes like that is to wait for the second version before I package, but in this case there doesn't seem to be a second version coming any time soon and there are several printers that otherwise would have no working driver.

Odd.  There is a setting for duplex in the ppd instruction file for the printer, and if it weren't a valid option then you wouldn't be able to set it when you printed.  But there must be some minor error in the ppd file that prevents duplex from appearing during configuration.  I suppose you could edit the ppd file manually to set the default to long edge duplex instead of single sided; I don't see any other obvious solution (except of course just accepting the nuisance of setting it each time you print).

For the duplex issue, either use a tool other than the Configurator to set up the printer, or switch to a different version of the Configurator.  configurator-2-qt4 seems to have problems with adding and configuring printers.

The version of the configurator binaries in configurator-2-qt4 seem to have a couple of bugs related to the addprinter routine (going back a couple of prior releases as well).  You can try configurator-1-qt4 or configurator-2-qt3, or just use another tool to add the printer; the configurator is not really necessary.