Re: Lexmark Z35 in an XPSP2 home network using WinME clients

From: Alan Morris\(MSFT\) (alanmo_at_online.microsoft.com)
Date: 01/12/05 

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 11:12:34 -0800

no clue on this. 

-- 
Alan Morris
Windows Printing Team
Search the Microsoft Knowledge Base here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];kbhowto
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
"Anton" <Anton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:500B931E-D500-45D1-A629-71A280F74872@microsoft.com...
> Difficult to follow up on my system as all labels etc are in norwegian and
> anyway none of the branches available to follow after having started
dcomcnfg
> leads me to remote access parameter. In fact I did try this over a month
ago
> (as well as other suggestiones including cleanly removing Lexmark
drivers).
> If you can express the instructions in registry terms?
>
> "Alan Morris(MSFT)" wrote:
>
> > Not sure who needs to fix it but Lexmark understands it's a DCOM issue.
> >
> > It's an issue with the DCOM communication interface.   I gave the
Lexmark
> > instructions to another user and it did not help them.  Let me know how
this
> > works for you and I will inform the Lexmark driver developers.
> >
> > From Lexmark:
> > Below is an excerpt from our development staff that was sent to the TAM
when
> > we first noticed the problem:
> >
> > "Our current printing solution uses a DCOM application
> > to provide client applications with print path, printer status and
> > printer configuration.  Our current implementation also supports remote
> > (machine) peer-to-peer printing with printer status.
> >
> > When we apply Service Pack 2 to a Windows XP machine, peer-to-peer
> > printing no longer functions correctly. We notice that our DCOM
> > application (which runs as a service) gets launched, but the remote
> > client gets an 'access denied' error (5) when it tries to use the
> > interface.  We did some investigation with DCOMCNFG and noticed that we
> > were able to print when the machine-wide settings were modified as
> > follows:
> >
> > DCOMCNFG- > 'Configure my Computer' button -> COM Security -> 'Access
> > Permissions'  Edit Limits  -> 'Remote Access' for Everyone=checked.
> >
> > Prior to the change, the allow and deny settings for Remote Access were
> > blank, which we understood to mean that the application's settings were
> > to be used. This leads us to our question: From a DCOM point of view,
> > what is the exact meaning of the new 'Security Limits' part of DCOMCNFG
> > and  what does it mean if a particular field is blank (that is, neither
> > Allow or Deny is checked)?
> >
> > Some background information may be useful.  Our component specifies
> > 'Connect' and 'Identify' as it's communication property at runtime with
> > CoInitializeSecurity().  It specifies launch and access permission via
> > the Registry under HKCR\AppId\{application guid}."
> >
> > This gives a basic understanding of why Lexmark uses DCOM and what we
try to
> > do in  the Peer to Peer configuration.  We basicallly use the DCOM
> > application for our bidirectional communications and we try to perform
the
> > communications via a Peer to Peer connected printer.
> >
> > As far as when it broke, we first noticed the problem in RC1 of the
service
> > pack.  We started the escalation then, but noticed it was fixed in RC2.
By
> > fixed, we basically mean the defaults for these settings were changed.
When
> > the RTM came out, the default settings for the COM Security were set
back to
> > the way they were in RC1.
> >
> > We have worked on a method that will allow us to programatically change
> > these settings, but we would need to prompt the user to let them know we
are
> > trying to make this change and would like to steer away from this if at
all
> > possible.  I was waiting to get this out to make sure it was possible
for us
> > to make this change.
> >
> > End Lexmark
> >
> > -- 
> > Alan Morris
> > Windows Printing Team
> > Search the Microsoft Knowledge Base here:
> > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];kbhowto
> >
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
> >
> > "Anton" <Anton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:A136CB09-0789-494C-80B1-46440EA5FB34@microsoft.com...
> > > Appreciate your effort to help solve this both with Lexmark and
Microsoft.
> > > I'm however puzzled as the only change to my environment was XPSP2.
Also I
> > > noticed an earlier reference to a beta of the servicepack which did
not
> > > interfere with this kind of home network printing setup. May be
Microsoft
> > is
> > > in a better position to solve it?
> > >
> > > "Alan Morris(MSFT)" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Contact Lexmark on this.  I'll forward this to the Lexmark test team
at
> > > > Microsoft.  They were working on this but the solution they came up
with
> > > > never worked.
> > > >
> > > > -- 
> > > > Alan Morris
> > > > Windows Printing Team
> > > > Search the Microsoft Knowledge Base here:
> > > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];kbhowto
> > > >
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > > >
> > > > "Anton" <Anton@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:BBF9B2A5-5B1A-45B8-9B50-20371F0CEAFB@microsoft.com...
> > > > > I've a strange printer driver behavior which I so far have not
been
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > resolve. My printer is a Lexmark Z35 usb connected to a WinXpHome
> > system.
> > > > My
> > > > > other network clients are WinMe systems. All Windows are Norwegian
> > > > language
> > > > > versions. I use a home network router. Prior to XPSP2 network
printing
> > was
> > > > > performing fine, however once I  applied the XPSP2 then client
drivers
> > > > could
> > > > > not communicate with the remote printer. As I've got Northon
Internet
> > > > > Security on all systems, I've switched off the Microsoft Security
> > Center
> > > > > firewall. Local printing on XP remains fine. If I remove the XPSP2
all
> > is
> > > > > back to previous state with the client network printing working
fine.
> > Any
> > > > > idea where to look to solve this will be very much apprechiated.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
> >