KM TA 400ci Email Workaround

[TBCTech]

Have a KM TaskAlpha 400ci, and am having issues with sending emails to address outside of our primary domain (probably due to 0Auth issues). I set up a workaround to send to an inside email address that will forward to the outside address, but the client is complaining that it is taking a long time to receive the emails (which is, I am guessing, due to issues with their provider).

I have tried everything under the sun to try to get it to work, but nothing seems to work other than the workaround I mentioned above.

Any ideas or suggestions?

[bsm2]

Need more information? Is it your smtp server? or an ISP? Some companies setup email so it only goes to there own domain. No outbound to other accounts. If they have there own IT contact them. Some companies have it setup that way for security reasons.

[tmaged]

I would suggest it's time to upgrade to a machine that supports encryption for SMTP.

[copier tech]

Have a KM TaskAlpha 400ci, and am having issues with sending emails to address outside of our primary domain (probably due to 0Auth issues). I set up a workaround to send to an inside email address that will forward to the outside address, but the client is complaining that it is taking a long time to receive the emails (which is, I am guessing, due to issues with their provider).

I have tried everything under the sun to try to get it to work, but nothing seems to work other than the workaround I mentioned above.

Any ideas or suggestions?

Old beast this model so why not simply set up SMB this is pretty much instant the user can then simply add the file & email as an attachment.

[tmaged]

This mschine doesn't support SMB V2, so scanning to Win 10 won't work.

[copier tech]

This mschine doesn't support SMB V2, so scanning to Win 10 won't work.

Doesnt need SMB v2 Version v1 is fine.

[eddie110171]

This mschine doesn't support SMB V2, so scanning to Win 10 won't work.
It will work you just have to enable SMB 1.0 client and server in windows features.

I would tell the client if they are unhappy with the scan to email speed then time to upgrade. That is 5 generations ago. Heck Microsoft has has 4 operating system upgrades since then. That unit was out with XP then 8, 8.1, 7 and now 10.

The biggest problem is without TLS you can't do anything email correctly unless the ISP allows the use of port 25 which allows no security.

[ntbann]

Why do some people on here keep suggesting that SMB v1 can be turned back on? It was turned off by Microsoft for a reason. Not only that but every windows update disables SMB v1 again. This in turn generates another service call. Or worse yet you turn SMB v1 on and your customer gets hacked. Who gets sued? The copier company that turned it on!

[eddie110171]

If they get hacked via SMB1 then they have bigger problems than the port 139 or 445. They have a firewall issue which is probably none. Truthfully they should be upgrading the copier to one that has newer versions of scanning. If they won't even upgrade the copier the network is most likely negleted too. Not only should they be using a newer copier but pinpoint scan, which uses peer to peer encripted and has not been hacked.

Truthfully and unfortunately you can not save the customer from themselves.

[guitar9199]

If they get hacked via SMB1 then they have bigger problems than the port 139 or 445. They have a firewall issue which is probably none. Truthfully they should be upgrading the copier to one that has newer versions of scanning. If they won't even upgrade the copier the network is most likely negleted too. Not only should they be using a newer copier but pinpoint scan, which uses peer to peer encripted and has not been hacked.

Truthfully and unfortunately you can not save the customer from themselves.


No.. you CAN'T "save them from themselves", but opening up a hole in their system isn't a very smart business practice either.

If THEY do something stupid to cause a security issue?? ...that's on them. If YOU do it?? You then open yourself up to a whole SUITE of lawsuits!!

...don't take chances.

[copier tech]

Why do some people on here keep suggesting that SMB v1 can be turned back on? It was turned off by Microsoft for a reason. Not only that but every windows update disables SMB v1 again. This in turn generates another service call. Or worse yet you turn SMB v1 on and your customer gets hacked. Who gets sued? The copier company that turned it on!

I was given a brand new Win 10 work laptop last week it still had SMB v1.0 enabled.

Wondering if this is only an issue in the US.

[darry1322]

I was given a brand new Win 10 work laptop last week it still had SMB v1.0 enabled.

Wondering if this is only an issue in the US.

Nope. Worldwide. SMB v1 is insecure and led to the Wannacry ransomware. Wannacry is supposed to be contained now but the vulnerability is still in SMB v1. I personally and professionally would not want to be responsible for opening up a customer network to data loss. Some IT companies are facing lawsuits for not disabling SMB v1 on their customers networks before they had their data hijacked. Don't want to join that crowd.

[copier tech]

Nope. Worldwide. SMB v1 is insecure and led to the Wannacry ransomware. Wannacry is supposed to be contained now but the vulnerability is still in SMB v1. I personally and professionally would not want to be responsible for opening up a customer network to data loss. Some IT companies are facing lawsuits for not disabling SMB v1 on their customers networks before they had their data hijacked. Don't want to join that crowd.

All I know is 99% of PC’s I look at still have SMB v1.0 enabled.

Like I say mostly an issue in the USA due to paranoia about as you saw lawsuits.

We don’t have the same “where theres a blame there’s a claim” culture in the UK.

[darry1322]

All I know is 99% of PC’s I look at still have SMB v1.0 enabled.

Like I say mostly an issue in the USA due to paranoia about as you saw lawsuits.

We don’t have the same “where theres a blame there’s a claim” culture in the UK.


But for me, even without the lawsuit threat, I wouldn't want to be the guy that opened that door.

If their IT wants to enable SMB v1, fine by me.

The advice being given here is to go into the settings of a PC where SMB v1 is disabled (made secure) and to re-enable SMB v1 (make insecure).

I'm not doing it and I won't recommend doing it.