[Samba] spoolss back connections to client

[Tom Vandepoel]

Gerald Carter wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Tom Vandepoel wrote:
> 
> > Since we've switched to spoolss printing (samba 2.2.4) it seems that the
> > server is always trying to connect to the client.
> >
> > [2002/06/11 10:52:41, 3] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_out(843)
> >   Connecting to 10.0.40.80 at port 445
> > [2002/06/11 10:52:41, 2] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_out(871)
> >   error connecting to 10.0.40.80:445 (Connection refused)
> > [2002/06/11 10:52:41, 3] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_out(843)
> >   Connecting to 10.0.40.80 at port 139
> >
> > I've traced this back in the source to the "spoolss_connect_to_client"
> > call in rpc_server/srv_spoolss_nt.c. It seems this is used to reply back
> > to the client with printing info.
> 
> This is the printer change notification back channel.
> 
> > However, in our environment, such connections typically fail, as we
> > disable the "Server" service on NT/W2K clients as much as possible. In
> > those cases, printing still works fine, so I'm starting to wonder if
> > these back connections are absolutely needed. They are especially
> > annoying when the back connection is made to a firewalled client; it
> > slows down response of the print server enormously (the server waits
> > until the back connection times out).
> >
> > So, I was thinking; is there an smb.conf option (or could it be
> > implemented) to disable these back connections? What would the impact be
> > if I modified the src_spoolss_replyopenprinter() routine to always
> > return false? Would that break anything?
> 
> Better to just comment out the SPOOLSS_RFFPCN and SPOOLSS_RFNPCN
> server functions.  However, certain changes will not be reflected on
> the client such as josb listings, etc....
> 
> btw....this is MS's model.  You'll have the same problem with
> a Win2k print server.  I do agree that it is a brain dead design...
> 

Thought so; just wanted to make sure I didn't cripple something
essential.
I pretty much don't care about updating job listings, so I guess I will
disable this in the source.
I'll let you know how it reacts ;-)

Might be usefull to have an smb.conf option for this, if this proves
stable ;-)