[cups.general] CUPS and Equitrac UNIX print serverimplementation

[Rick Cochran]

By "local spooler", I mean the spooler on the workstation originating the print 
job.  Unless I am completely mistaken, you would need an SPN on each one of them.

I take it you don't have students using this printing facility.  I don't think 
that telling students they couldn't have their own directly attached printers 
would go over well.

-Rick

Anders BXXck wrote:
> In our case I don't think that creating a SPN for the (Linux) print server
> would be too much of a problem...but I might have missunderstood what you
> meant.
> 
> In regards to the negated possibility to use directly attached printers, if I
> have understood your post correct, each client must have (in their
> /etc/cups/client.conf) a servername directive (or acctually the SPN of the
> server spool?) in order to print successfully...and then they will not be
> able to use for example a local attached USB printer?
> 
> If that is the case,it would acctually be better than if they could use the
> direct attached printer. The reason is that it is better not to be able to
> use anything but the network printers, since the University has a policy that
> _all_ print jobs shall be accountable, with very few exceptions.
> 
> Besides the hassle of getting the conf-files to all clients,the above
> scenario would work for us (if I have understood it right)....combined with
> the possibilty to use kerberized CUPS and Equitrac.
> 
> 
>> I did a bit of research into using Kerberized CUPS.  I concluded:
>> 
>> 1. If the print job is to be handled by the local spooler, the local
>> spooler must have its own service principal.  This is utterly impractical.
>> 
>> 2. In order for the print job to bypass the local spooler, there must be a 
>> "ServerName" directivein /etc/cups/client.conf or ~/.cups/client.conf.
>> This creates two problems: The ServerName directive applies to _all_
>> printers, eliminating the possibility of, say, a directly attached printer.
>> And I suspect that the print job would not go through the local CUPS
>> filters, requiring that all the necessary filters be present on the server,
>> and moving some processing load to the server.
>> 
>> I concluded that Kerberized CUPS is not practical for our needs at this
>> time.
>> 
>> I hope someone will correct me if any of the above is incorrect.
>> 
>> -Rick
>> 
>> Anders BXXck wrote:
>>> Hi all!
>>> 
>>> I have a question whether anyone here has made a implementation with CUPS
>>> and the Equitrac Express print quota system ?
>>> 
>>> We have implemented a print solution for a University who has a mixed 
>>> environment: Windows, UNIX, Linux and Macintosh. The University uses
>>> Heimdal Kerberos for authentication through out their organization.
>>> 
>>> At present the solution for "non-Windows" clients is based on FreeBSD
>>> print server (LPRng) which "forwards" all print jobs to a windows print
>>> server (with Equitrac software installed) in order for the jobs to be
>>> accountable, which isn't a favorable solution due to a lot of manual
>>> configuration.
>>> 
>>> Since CUPS now (seems?) to support Kerberos it would be very interesting
>>> to learn if anyone on this forum has any experience of (kerberized) CUPS
>>> and Equitrac?
>>> 
>>> /Brook _______________________________________________ cups mailing list 
>>> cups at easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/cups
> 
> _______________________________________________ cups mailing list 
> cups at easysw.com http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/cups