Reolink Q2 Product Roadmap Learn More
Unveiling the New Standard in Clarity With #Reolink16MP Series Learn More
Reolink App v4.44 Released Learn More
Your browser does not seem to support JavaScript. As a result, your viewing experience will be diminished, and you have been placed in read-only mode.
Please download a browser that supports JavaScript, or enable it if it's disabled (i.e. NoScript).
@joseph_1979 I have installed Wireshark on the Synology box but unfortunately I cannot work out how to capture the FTP traffic.
@joseph_1979 Yes, FW is at version v3.0.0.3215_2401262241I have seen a couple of transfers be successful now, but it is totally random. It will work sometimes but then stop working with exactly the same settings. I do think there must be a bug in the FTP function which is causing the transactions to fail some of the time but not all the time.Having to wait 30 minutes between posts is seriously doing my head in! I cannot wait any longer right now - I have other things to do so I will not be able to come straight back to you.
@joseph_1979 There is no PC involved - just the doorbell camera straight to the Synology box over the internet. I get an error "450 Unkown error" when I use the Test function from the camera. Also of interest is that the camera has no problem creating date-organised folders on the FTP server (ie 2024 with 03 inside it and 06 inside that). The .txt file inside the last folder is zero bytes, though. The FTP log records the creation of the folders, and the user logging in successfully for the FTP transfer, but there is no record of the text file being written.I have tried disabling SSL (ie switching off FTPS) but it makes no difference.I have also tried changing the transport mode as there are suggestions this might help elsewhere on the web, but no joy. I am beginning to think that the FTP function is simply broken. It is frustrating because the folders get created OK, so this is working, but it just does not seem possible to transfer a file. Just tried to post this and was denied because it has not been 1800 seconds since my last post - half an hour! Why are there such ridiculous constraints on using this board - it is almost unusable. Maybe that is the idea?
@joseph_1979 The user on the Synology box for the FTP transfers has full read/write access to the share, permission to use the FTP application, and no quota limiting it.I can't write any more here without triggering the unsuitable content filter - why, I have absolutely no clue.
@joseph_1979 Thanks - hopefully I will be able to post this, although getting through the various filters has been problematic. I have a Doorbell PoE camera which I have set up to sync to a Synology box using FTP. The camera connects to the Synology and can write a file to it, so no apparent problems with authetication, but the file has zero bytes in it. Any ideas what might be causing this?
I have tried and tried to alter my text here but I cannot find wording that meets the "respectful guidelines". I totally don't know what it could possibly be that is wrong with my wording, but basically the FTP function does not seem to work. I tried to explain what I have done but the website does not permit me to do so.
@joseph_1979 Latest version I have just downloaded and installed is v3.0.0.3215_2401262241.
@joseph_1979 The password is only one element of authentication, so if you can also have a setup where the username is different than expected it adds very substantially to the level of security. Also people are not good at using unique passwords (I know, they should do, but we live in the real world!) so having a different username helps to avoid that problem.It may be true that most SMTP servers require the email address, but believe me that is not ALL servers! As I say, it is a very good added degree of security to have a different username than the email address.
This is an issue that is very frustrating. Some email servers require a login ID that is not the same as the email address, so for example your email address might be in the normal form (I can't quote an example as this board doesn't permit "links") but your login ID might be "user", or even something unrelated such as "loginID". However the Reolink built-in email client only supports the following fields:Sender Name (not functional as such, just displays as the name of the person sending the email)Sender Address (this is used in two ways, for the address from which the email has been sent AND as the login ID for the mail server)Password (the password for the mail server account)Recipient Address 1, 2 & 3 (great to have three addresses)To be compatible with all mail servers there needs to be another field, which is UserID, or LoginID, whatever name is chosen for it. This would be the ID which is sent to the email server when the email is sent if authentication is required (as it should be in most cases for security reasons and to avoid your server being used for spam). Without this you can ONLY send emails via servers which use the email address as the login ID, which is most definitely not all of the servers which people use.I can imagine that Reolink think it is simpler and maybe less confusing to not have this separate field, but the tradeoff is that the client just doesn't work with many servers, which is in my view not a good tradeoff!Quite apart from anything else, it is a definite security plus to have a different login ID than the email address, as many bad actors who try to gain access to your mailbox, or send spam, will default to trying to log in using your email address as the login ID. Having a different loginID makes it MUCH less likely that someone will be able to do either of these bad things, unless of course you succumb to a phishing attack. But you are much less susceptible to a simple trial and error attack by a bad actor. So having a different loginID is actually a really good thing, and I don't think that Reolink should prevent their users from using mail servers which are like this, as they do.
My E1 Outdoor (hardware IPC_523SD8) has firmware version 3.1.0.989_22081906 but when I check for updates in the firmware update function I am told I have the latest version. Why am I getting this message if there is a later version?
Welcome Back!
Hi there! Join the Commnunity to get all the latest news, tips and more!