Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Getting A Message To Somebody With Just An IP Addr?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
(PeteCresswell)
Aug 5, 2012, 8:14:11 PM8/5/12
to
I've got a couple of surf cams up and running.
The server allows me to see what IP addrs are connected when, how
long, and which cameras.
I'd like to poll some of these people as to how well the cams are
working for them, but all I have are IP addrs.
The obvious is to lay a bitmap or something over the camera
screens with my contact info on it... but it was such a struggle
to get these things up and working that I'd rather not mess with
success....
Is there anything - a message handler port or something - where I
could push some text with at least some chance of the person
seeing it?
Seems like I used to get spammed via Microsoft Message until I
killed a service or something.
--
Pete Cresswell
The server allows me to see what IP addrs are connected when, how
long, and which cameras.
I'd like to poll some of these people as to how well the cams are
working for them, but all I have are IP addrs.
The obvious is to lay a bitmap or something over the camera
screens with my contact info on it... but it was such a struggle
to get these things up and working that I'd rather not mess with
success....
Is there anything - a message handler port or something - where I
could push some text with at least some chance of the person
seeing it?
Seems like I used to get spammed via Microsoft Message until I
killed a service or something.
--
Pete Cresswell
VanguardLH
Aug 5, 2012, 8:35:52 PM8/5/12
to
would be internal to their network and then through perhaps a router
which gets their ISP's IP address assignment, or it's possible they get
an IP address from their ISP for their camera. None of those will
identify their e-mail address which could be at their ISP or some other
e-mail provider (Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, etc). Your IP address never
identifies your e-mail address.
The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside the
user's own network. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messenger_service
If you're within the network segment of another host, you could use the
"net send" command to send them an alert; however, almost if not all
firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139 traffic.
You don't know WHO's camera it is that you're watching so you would then
know who to notify of a problem with it?
Char Jackson
Aug 5, 2012, 8:54:17 PM8/5/12
to
On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 20:14:11 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:
>I've got a couple of surf cams up and running.
>
>The server allows me to see what IP addrs are connected when, how
>long, and which cameras.
>
>I'd like to poll some of these people as to how well the cams are
>working for them, but all I have are IP addrs.
>
>The obvious is to lay a bitmap or something over the camera
>screens with my contact info on it... but it was such a struggle
>to get these things up and working that I'd rather not mess with
>success....
I think that's your only option...
>Is there anything - a message handler port or something - where I
>could push some text with at least some chance of the person
>seeing it?
No, your only data connection to those people is the streaming video
connection that they've established, so your only opportunity to get a
message to them is via that connection, and your idea of overlaying a
URL or other contact info is all I can think of.
>Seems like I used to get spammed via Microsoft Message until I
>killed a service or something.
Microsoft's Messenger service is limited to your local LAN, so it
won't work across the Internet. Besides, most people have the service
disabled by now.
wrote:
>I've got a couple of surf cams up and running.
>
>The server allows me to see what IP addrs are connected when, how
>long, and which cameras.
>
>I'd like to poll some of these people as to how well the cams are
>working for them, but all I have are IP addrs.
>
>The obvious is to lay a bitmap or something over the camera
>screens with my contact info on it... but it was such a struggle
>to get these things up and working that I'd rather not mess with
>success....
>Is there anything - a message handler port or something - where I
>could push some text with at least some chance of the person
>seeing it?
connection that they've established, so your only opportunity to get a
message to them is via that connection, and your idea of overlaying a
URL or other contact info is all I can think of.
>Seems like I used to get spammed via Microsoft Message until I
>killed a service or something.
won't work across the Internet. Besides, most people have the service
disabled by now.
Thor Kottelin
Aug 5, 2012, 9:48:54 PM8/5/12
to
"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:jvn3h7$4kp$1...@news.albasani.net...
> The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
> segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside the
> user's own network.
*is* routable.
--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/
news:jvn3h7$4kp$1...@news.albasani.net...
> The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
> segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside the
> user's own network.
> almost if not all
> firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139 traffic.
Such firewall rules are advisable precisely because NetBIOS over TCP/IP
> firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139 traffic.
*is* routable.
--
Thor Kottelin
http://www.anta.net/
Thor Kottelin
Aug 5, 2012, 10:00:47 PM8/5/12
to
"(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:cq2u18pacsr683jj1...@4ax.com...
you could then use to display arbitrary information using HTML.
(With the simplest of such solutions, astute users might still retrieve
the URI of the camera and paste it into the address bar of their browser,
but perhaps that would not be an issue as long as most users would see
your HTML page.)
news:cq2u18pacsr683jj1...@4ax.com...
> I've got a couple of surf cams up and running.
>
> The server allows me to see what IP addrs are connected when, how
> long, and which cameras.
>
> I'd like to poll some of these people as to how well the cams are
> working for them, but all I have are IP addrs.
>
> The obvious is to lay a bitmap or something over the camera
> screens with my contact info on it... but it was such a struggle
> to get these things up and working that I'd rather not mess with
> success....
Another option might be to make the webcam image part of a web page, which
>
> The server allows me to see what IP addrs are connected when, how
> long, and which cameras.
>
> I'd like to poll some of these people as to how well the cams are
> working for them, but all I have are IP addrs.
>
> The obvious is to lay a bitmap or something over the camera
> screens with my contact info on it... but it was such a struggle
> to get these things up and working that I'd rather not mess with
> success....
you could then use to display arbitrary information using HTML.
(With the simplest of such solutions, astute users might still retrieve
the URI of the camera and paste it into the address bar of their browser,
but perhaps that would not be an issue as long as most users would see
your HTML page.)
Char Jackson
Aug 5, 2012, 10:07:54 PM8/5/12
to
VanguardLH
Aug 6, 2012, 1:27:38 AM8/6/12
to
"Thor Kottelin" wrote:
> "VanguardLH" wrote ...
NetBEUI and NBT continues today.
http://www.answers.com/topic/netbios
Okay, so even if we talk about NetBEUI, the typical setups today will
have software and router firewalls blocking the related ports plus the
ISPs block it. So while you can use NetBEUI as a transport protocol
within your own network, it's not getting out or in from your ISP. That
is now. Back when ISPs weren't blocking NetBEUI ports was when you'd
get those attacks of someone trying to puke up an alert window on your
screen. How long ago would that be now? Yeah, it might be routable but
it's not getting far these days.
NetBIOS/NetBEUI is not routable.
(http://www.ehow.com/list_5924590_types-non_routable-protocol.html)
NetBIOS Frames (NBF) is also non-routable.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS_Frames_protocol).
NetBIOS over TCP/IP (NBT) that encapsulates NetBIOS messages inside TCP
datagrams is routable.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS_over_TCP/IP)
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758517(v=ws.10).aspx
- "NetBIOS defines a software interface and a naming convention, not a
protocol."
- "NetBEUI is a small, fast protocol with no networking layer; thus, it
is not routable and is not suitable for internetworks. NetBEUI relies
on multicasts for name resolution and location of services."
- "NetBIOS over TCP/IP provides the NetBIOS programming interface over
the TCP/IP protocol, extending the reach of NetBIOS client and server
programs to the WAN"
So what does the "net send" command generate? What does the Messenger
NT service use? So far, all I've found about it is that it uses NetBIOS
and that's not routable (or even a networking layer protocol). If it
used NBT then it would be routable. If you right-click on your LAN
connectoid in the Network applet in Control Panel, look at Properties,
select the TCP/IP protocol and look at its properties, go to Advanced,
and go under the WINS tab, it's likely you are using the Default
setting. Likely the default is to enable NetBIOS over TCP (NBT).
I really doubt Pete, on his end or wherever are the web cameras, is
using an ISP that haven't already killed NBT. Maybe if he had a
business account and could request specific IP addresses to be allowed
NBT connections then he'd also have to get any routers reconfigured to
their firewalls don't block the above mentioned ports and then also
configure any software firewalls running on the hosts to also not block
those ports.
And then he'll have to ensure the Messenger NT service is configured for
Automatic startup and loads okay. The 2002 rash of spam popups
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netspam.gif) and a Microsoft alert in
2003 (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms03-043) had
users disabling the Messenger NT service and updating their firewall
rules (which later became standard rules included in the install of
firewalls). Then as of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP the Messenger NT
service got disabled by default.
So Pete would need to somehow overcome the default blocking of NBT and
the NetBIOS ports employed by all ISPs. Then he would have to make sure
any router, its firewall, or any software firewalls on the hosts don't
block NBT or those ports. Then he needs to ensure the target host has
the Messenger NT service configured for Automatic startup and that it
loads successfully on Windows startup. He has to make sure the endpoint
hosts using NBT are configured in their TCP/IP properties to allow NBT.
Good luck with that.
> "VanguardLH" wrote ...
>
>> The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
>> segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside
>> the user's own network.
>
>> almost if not all firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139
>> traffic.
>
> Such firewall rules are advisable precisely because NetBIOS over TCP/IP
> *is* routable.
Looks like we're getting picky here or the confusion between NetBIOS and
>> The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
>> segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside
>> the user's own network.
>
>> almost if not all firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139
>> traffic.
>
> Such firewall rules are advisable precisely because NetBIOS over TCP/IP
> *is* routable.
NetBEUI and NBT continues today.
http://www.answers.com/topic/netbios
Okay, so even if we talk about NetBEUI, the typical setups today will
have software and router firewalls blocking the related ports plus the
ISPs block it. So while you can use NetBEUI as a transport protocol
within your own network, it's not getting out or in from your ISP. That
is now. Back when ISPs weren't blocking NetBEUI ports was when you'd
get those attacks of someone trying to puke up an alert window on your
screen. How long ago would that be now? Yeah, it might be routable but
it's not getting far these days.
NetBIOS/NetBEUI is not routable.
(http://www.ehow.com/list_5924590_types-non_routable-protocol.html)
NetBIOS Frames (NBF) is also non-routable.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS_Frames_protocol).
NetBIOS over TCP/IP (NBT) that encapsulates NetBIOS messages inside TCP
datagrams is routable.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NetBIOS_over_TCP/IP)
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc758517(v=ws.10).aspx
- "NetBIOS defines a software interface and a naming convention, not a
protocol."
- "NetBEUI is a small, fast protocol with no networking layer; thus, it
is not routable and is not suitable for internetworks. NetBEUI relies
on multicasts for name resolution and location of services."
- "NetBIOS over TCP/IP provides the NetBIOS programming interface over
the TCP/IP protocol, extending the reach of NetBIOS client and server
programs to the WAN"
So what does the "net send" command generate? What does the Messenger
NT service use? So far, all I've found about it is that it uses NetBIOS
and that's not routable (or even a networking layer protocol). If it
used NBT then it would be routable. If you right-click on your LAN
connectoid in the Network applet in Control Panel, look at Properties,
select the TCP/IP protocol and look at its properties, go to Advanced,
and go under the WINS tab, it's likely you are using the Default
setting. Likely the default is to enable NetBIOS over TCP (NBT).
I really doubt Pete, on his end or wherever are the web cameras, is
using an ISP that haven't already killed NBT. Maybe if he had a
business account and could request specific IP addresses to be allowed
NBT connections then he'd also have to get any routers reconfigured to
their firewalls don't block the above mentioned ports and then also
configure any software firewalls running on the hosts to also not block
those ports.
And then he'll have to ensure the Messenger NT service is configured for
Automatic startup and loads okay. The 2002 rash of spam popups
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Netspam.gif) and a Microsoft alert in
2003 (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/security/bulletin/ms03-043) had
users disabling the Messenger NT service and updating their firewall
rules (which later became standard rules included in the install of
firewalls). Then as of Service Pack 2 for Windows XP the Messenger NT
service got disabled by default.
So Pete would need to somehow overcome the default blocking of NBT and
the NetBIOS ports employed by all ISPs. Then he would have to make sure
any router, its firewall, or any software firewalls on the hosts don't
block NBT or those ports. Then he needs to ensure the target host has
the Messenger NT service configured for Automatic startup and that it
loads successfully on Windows startup. He has to make sure the endpoint
hosts using NBT are configured in their TCP/IP properties to allow NBT.
Good luck with that.
Thor Kottelin
Aug 6, 2012, 5:43:54 AM8/6/12
to
"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:jvnkju$ico$1...@news.albasani.net...
> "Thor Kottelin" wrote:
>
>> "VanguardLH" wrote ...
>>
>>> The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
>>> segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside
>>> the user's own network.
>>
>>> almost if not all firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139
>>> traffic.
>>
>> Such firewall rules are advisable precisely because NetBIOS over TCP/IP
>> *is* routable.
>
>> "VanguardLH" wrote ...
>>
>>> The Messenger service is unusable to send alerts beyond a network
>>> segment. They aren't routable which means they won't get outside
>>> the user's own network.
>>
>>> almost if not all firewalls will block port 135, 137, 138, and 139
>>> traffic.
>>
>> Such firewall rules are advisable precisely because NetBIOS over TCP/IP
>> *is* routable.
> Pete would need to somehow overcome the default blocking of NBT and
> the NetBIOS ports employed by all ISPs. Then he would have to make sure
> any router, its firewall, or any software firewalls on the hosts don't
> block NBT or those ports. Then he needs to ensure the target host has
> the Messenger NT service configured for Automatic startup and that it
> loads successfully on Windows startup. He has to make sure the endpoint
> hosts using NBT are configured in their TCP/IP properties to allow NBT.
> Good luck with that.
I agree that using the Messenger service is not useful for arbitrary
> the NetBIOS ports employed by all ISPs. Then he would have to make sure
> any router, its firewall, or any software firewalls on the hosts don't
> block NBT or those ports. Then he needs to ensure the target host has
> the Messenger NT service configured for Automatic startup and that it
> loads successfully on Windows startup. He has to make sure the endpoint
> hosts using NBT are configured in their TCP/IP properties to allow NBT.
> Good luck with that.
internetwork communications. However, were NetBIOS over TCP/IP
intrinsically *unroutable*, there would be no need for the blocking you
mention above.
(PeteCresswell)
Aug 6, 2012, 9:41:41 AM8/6/12
to
Per VanguardLH:
ask somebody using them how well they are working for them.
--
Pete Cresswell
>You don't know WHO's camera it is that you're watching so you would then
>know who to notify of a problem with it?
It's the other way around. They are my cameras and I want to
>know who to notify of a problem with it?
ask somebody using them how well they are working for them.
--
Pete Cresswell
VanguardLH
Aug 6, 2012, 10:29:19 AM8/6/12
to
them. When you give them your cameras, why don't you get their e-mail
address? If they're your cameras, presumably you'll want them back so
you must have some means of contacting their current users. Give them a
call and ask for an e-mail address.
If you're just handing them out to strangers passing you on the street
and getting no contact info from them, they aren't your cameras anymore.
Char Jackson
Aug 6, 2012, 10:39:39 AM8/6/12
to
the condition of the surf. He just wants to be able to get some
feedback from the folks who drop by to check the cams. The URL's are
publicly accessible. In fact, he posted the URL's awhile back.
VanguardLH
Aug 6, 2012, 3:39:07 PM8/6/12
to
"Char Jackson" wrote:
I thought back then the surf cam discussion tended towards presenting
them in a web page. If so, Thor's suggestion seems the answer. If the
users decide to go to the direct URLs for the cams and not see the web
page then that's their choice not to see the web page with an insert
for the cam video. In fact, that looks like what he already did. See:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.windsurfing/Cwd7xJ1x684
You won't be able to see the cam video (unless you're willing to
install an ActiveX control which often do not have uninstall
procedures). Seems he could put contact info on that page or put a
"Contact" link to another web page. Rather than use e-mail, he might
want to check into using a web form that users fill out and he receives
an e-mail after they click the submit button. Could be Blue Iris is
some webhosting provider for his cam video so he doesn't get to modify
the contents of their web pages (it's their pages or templates he gets
to use). Still, it seems possible he could put up his own web site
with contact info or a contact web form and links to the Blue Iris URLs
on his own home page.
them in a web page. If so, Thor's suggestion seems the answer. If the
users decide to go to the direct URLs for the cams and not see the web
page then that's their choice not to see the web page with an insert
for the cam video. In fact, that looks like what he already did. See:
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/rec.windsurfing/Cwd7xJ1x684
You won't be able to see the cam video (unless you're willing to
install an ActiveX control which often do not have uninstall
procedures). Seems he could put contact info on that page or put a
"Contact" link to another web page. Rather than use e-mail, he might
want to check into using a web form that users fill out and he receives
an e-mail after they click the submit button. Could be Blue Iris is
some webhosting provider for his cam video so he doesn't get to modify
the contents of their web pages (it's their pages or templates he gets
to use). Still, it seems possible he could put up his own web site
with contact info or a contact web form and links to the Blue Iris URLs
on his own home page.
(PeteCresswell)
Aug 6, 2012, 9:04:18 PM8/6/12
to
Per VanguardLH:
They are located permanently in two different places and attached
to a server.
I give the users a link to the server - as in
//ExtremeSurfCam.DynDNS.org:8080
The idea behind all this is that it allows people who windsurf
this location to see for themselves how conditions are instead of
having the windsurfing shop owner's phone ring every five minutes
on an windy day.
I think I need to suck it up and lay those bitmaps into the
screens.
--
Pete Cresswell
>Okay, so they are your cameras that you loan to someone else to use
>them.
Not quite.
>them.
They are located permanently in two different places and attached
to a server.
I give the users a link to the server - as in
//ExtremeSurfCam.DynDNS.org:8080
The idea behind all this is that it allows people who windsurf
this location to see for themselves how conditions are instead of
having the windsurfing shop owner's phone ring every five minutes
on an windy day.
I think I need to suck it up and lay those bitmaps into the
screens.
--
Pete Cresswell
(PeteCresswell)
Aug 6, 2012, 9:07:34 PM8/6/12
to
Per VanguardLH:
limits on individual cams or bandwidth limitations on one of the
cams.
But it's just not in the cards at this time. The guy who does
the shop's web site is willing to embed the link to the Blue Iris
server, but that's all.
--
Pete Cresswell
> Still, it seems possible he could put up his own web site
>with contact info or a contact web form and links to the Blue Iris URLs
>on his own home page.
This is what I'd really like - notwithstanding concurrent login
>with contact info or a contact web form and links to the Blue Iris URLs
>on his own home page.
limits on individual cams or bandwidth limitations on one of the
cams.
But it's just not in the cards at this time. The guy who does
the shop's web site is willing to embed the link to the Blue Iris
server, but that's all.
--
Pete Cresswell
VanguardLH
Aug 6, 2012, 10:15:31 PM8/6/12
to
issue. However, if you merely provide links on your home page to the
Blue Iris site then you visitors go there and use their bandwidth. Your
home page describes what each web cam sees and where it is. Visitors
would click on a link by each description to go to the appropriate page
at the other site. Web sites usually have links to off-site locations.
On your home page you can have contact info or use a web form (if you
don't want everyone, including spammers and malcontents, knowing your
real e-mail address) but that requires your webhoster to allow
server-side scripts you can use to accept the form data and then e-mail
it to yourself.
0 new messages