Re: EPSON ET M 1120 new printer: If You can read this, you are using the wrong driver
On Fri 14 Apr 2023 at 19:06:08 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> On 2023-04-14 at 18:52, Brian wrote:
>
> > On Fri 14 Apr 2023 at 18:22:09 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> >
> >> On 2023-04-14 at 18:10, Brian wrote:
>
> >> > You could consider:
> >> >
> >> > * Stating the Debain OS being used.
> >> > * Giving the printer make and model.
> >>
> >> The make *was* stated: Epson.
> >>
> >> The model may also have been stated, albeig only in the Subject line: ET
> >> M1120. From a bit of Googling, the "ET" appears to stand for "EcoTank".
> >
> > The EPSON ET M 1120 doesn't exist. Do we have to guess its correct name as well
> > as any other relevant information?
>
> When I searched for
>
> Epson ET M 1120
>
> I got a suggestion that I may have meant "M1120" instead of the last two
> search terms, and hits for the "Epson EcoTank ET M1120" and/or "Epson
> EcoTank M1120", which look to be different names for the same model and
> to be a fairly clear match.
>
> While, yes, specifying the exact name clearly would be preferable, this
> is far from unreasonably difficult to figure out.
I decided to take your signature as a template for my original response :).
> >> > * Specifying the connection method. USB. Network.
> >> > * Giving the exact error message and where it came from.
> >>
> >> Also:
> >>
> >> * Starting a new thread to discuss the matter, rather than replying
> >> to an existing message deep in an existing thread, deleting the
> >> body, and changing the Subject line before sending.
> >>
> >> (This question, and its replies, are appearing as responses to a
> >> mail from Michael Stone in the 'update-initramfs' thread.)
> >
> > I haven't a clue what you are going on about here. Shift-L in mutt
> > was used at this end.
>
> Your replies to the OP have been fine, AFAIK. The OP's message was
> itself a reply, as can be seen by looking at its headers (In-Reply-To:
> and References:), but was otherwise presented as if it had been the
> start of a new thread; that is not fine, because it hides the "new
> thread" inside of the existing one, at least for anyone using a threaded
> view of the list of messages.
That's an issue for the OP, not me.
--
Brian.
Reply to: