Question:
Setting up an FTP for Samsung CLX-8385 Multi-Function to send scans to a Windows Server 2003 SP2 shared folder?
RicoBanderez
2013-05-27 21:33:32 UTC
Hi all,

I am medium to high level tech savvy but little/no experience in Samsung multi-function and Windows Server 2003. I can navigate around them well enough and understand some of the language.

I followed the instructions on the Samsung scanner to add a Server.
It asks for:
FTP Server Address: (192.168.250.1)
FTP Server Port: 139 (This is the default in the box... not sure about this)
Login: Samsung (I have set up a user in the AD)
Password: (set)
Path: Winserv2\Samsung Scans (should I be adding my domain?)

So i'm not trying to see if I need to be changing any settings on the server but this is where I'm falling over...

I keep getting a 'Network Error' error message on the scanner whenever I try to send a file.

It does 'think' about it for a while which suggests to me that there is a level of communication happening... before this; when I was trying to connect via SMB, I was getting an almost immediate failure... since changing over to FTP it does seem to be getting a bit further but still failing.

Can anyone suggest anything?

The printer is connected to a switch which is then connected to the server. the data does not pass through any routers or anything, it's almost a direct connection.

Any suggestions?

Thanks folks
Three answers:
scott b
2013-05-27 23:37:10 UTC
The first question is the Port number. The default FTP port is 21. Not 139. If you're trying to connect FTP to port 139, you need to change the default port in IIS to 139 on the server.

If you don't, then the software is going to try to connect on port 139, and the server will be listening for FTP on port 21. (I believe "netstat -a" on the server should tell you what port FTP is listening on)



You can also go to a PC, open a CMD prompt and type "FTP" to open an FTP client. Try to connect with this first before you try with the printer. If this doesn't work, then you know it's not the printer and it's a protocol or server problem. If it does, then you know it's the printer.

I'm willing to bet, though, from your description that you have to either change the printer to FTP on port 21, or the Server to listen for FTP on port 139.
BigE
2013-05-27 21:59:55 UTC
139 is not ftp so methinks you changed it or it isn't the factory default. I am assuming it is using passive ftp, so that should be 21 but you actually need an FTP server running on your end, not a network share.
Marilyn
2016-03-10 02:21:46 UTC
Anyone with even vestigial pride has the impulse to present themself as attractively to others as is possible. For this reason, I am fairly sure that everyone with some pride, knowing of an emotional imperfection that the community is perceived to deplore, will go to some lengths to hide or disguise this facet of their makeup. For many, many males, I imagine that this secret is psycho-sexual in origin. Could this also be a factor for females in some different form? I read a day or two ago that 'sex sites' (labelled 'porn', but containing only 'normal' human sexual situations) report that photographs/videos featuring 18-year-old females that look as if they were much, much younger, are visited with alarming frequency. If these statistics are accurate, I deduce that as much as 70% of males are almost 'paedophiles' insofar as their latent, secret desires are concerned. This possibly indicates that the majority of males are secretly afraid that their sexual being and performance is 'weak', unable to stand comparison, and that their best chance of achieving acceptance and admiration as an exciting sexual partner is through association with a female of very limited experience, experience of other 'more acceptable' males. [If this is so, it is sad, not disgusting, surely? I feel disgust, too, but why?] Our community is far, far harder on paedophiles than it is on axe murderers. ("Methinks thou doth protest too much." Shakespeare) Is this in any way an example of self-criticism, an attack on someone similar to the people making the noise, in order to deny to others [and to self] that the noise-maker is also 'afflicted'? It could well be, perhaps. The sometimes hysterical, very public, almost competitively exaggerated reaction to paedophiles, even by those who have no children to protect, could be a denial of the embryonic paedophile's impulse within themselves? (Hmmm. Thinks: I had better tone down my own shouts...) *As little as 75 years ago, Charles Chaplin lived openly as a paedophile. Parents virtually offered their 12-yr-old girls to him (marriage!). To share his fame and money? *Dodson, revered mathematician, pioneer of photography (mostly naked children being his subjects), and children's author, ('Lewis Carrol'), a generation before him, was much the same. *Mohammed, venerated as much as Jesus, preferred 9-year-old brides (plural). *Etc., etc. There was then no noisy public expression of disgust, and these men were affected in no way in their enormous popularity by this public knowledge. [ I experience the same revulsion as do most other people when considering this, but I wonder why I do? What actually has changed? Has 'feminism' in fact worked?] If I could be bothered [and possessed far better skills as a social researcher], I believe that this would be a valuable and fascinating topic for academic research.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...