On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 05:32:49PM -0800, Lee Howard wrote:
Quite right. I'm sorry to have misled.
What happens is this (as an example scenario):
The receiver will, for an example, receive the post-page message. The
sender expects a response to this. The receiver, however, is required
Lee Howard wrote:
On 2005.02.27 11:28 Jon Gabrielson wrote:
You wouldn't happen to know how to do this would you?
I currently have a box with both hylafax and asterisk installed.
asterisk handles the dedicated voice lines over a t100p and
hylafax handles the dedicated fax lines over a 4port serial
Lee Howard wrote:
On 2005.02.27 09:30 Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 09:10:48AM -0800, Lee Howard wrote:
Fax cannot handle a one-second delay. As Steve mentions in the
article, per-spec fax has some timings (particularly silence in
direction switching) set at 75 ms +/-
Hi, my name is Pedro Caria I'm new to this list.
I live in Portugal and find myself in the position to talk often to
various parts of the world, very often the Telco line has a delay
superior to 1s, I also fax in the same conditions, so to my experience
faxes do work with delays far superior to
Hi,
Questions keep comming up about this, so I started writing something at
http://www.soft-switch.org/foip.html . I think I covered the FAX over
VoIP issues fairly completely. T.37 is pretty simple to explain. There
is rather more to say about T.38, but at least this is a start. If
anyone
Steve,
Excellent summary thus far!!! Will the summary stay on that url for a
lengthy period of time, or would it be possible to copy it to the wiki
when complete?
One item you might add to the T.38 discussion is a relatively short
paragraph that describes/relates the current analog fax
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 04:14:46PM +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
Questions keep comming up about this, so I started writing something at
http://www.soft-switch.org/foip.html . I think I covered the FAX over
VoIP issues fairly completely. T.37 is pretty simple to explain. There
is rather
Hello Steve.
It's an excellent read.
In two places you mention that V.34-Fax is 28,800 bps. Actually,
V.34-Fax has speeds ranging from 2400 baud to 33600 baud all using
V.34. And, while most V.34 connections are going to not probably be
more than 28,800 bps, I have seen sustained analog V.34
On 2005.02.27 04:26 Rich Adamson wrote:
Back in the olden days, I recall several modem vendors bundling PC fax
software with their products. All of those old Win v3.1 apps created
a fax file (eg, pdf or otherwise) that could be distributed via email.
Well, I don't remember any of them doing PDFs.
On 2005.02.27 08:34 Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
Hi,
I read it and found it very enlightening. I do have one question
regarding Modems don't like relativity. It says modems need a
constant delay; is there a limit to what it can handle. For example,
would it be possible to configure a jitterbuffer
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 09:10:48AM -0800, Lee Howard wrote:
Fax cannot handle a one-second delay. As Steve mentions in the
article, per-spec fax has some timings (particularly silence in
direction switching) set at 75 ms +/- 20 ms. So if the delay gets
much larger than 75 ms, then there's
Any computer fax application that I know of will write the image to
file, modern ones usually use TIFF. HylaFAX, mgetty+sendfax, efax,
spandsp, etc. Then you just write the glue to make it deliver that fax
image by e-mail. HylaFAX already has that built-in, and just requires
some minor
You wouldn't happen to know how to do this would you?
I currently have a box with both hylafax and asterisk installed.
asterisk handles the dedicated voice lines over a t100p and
hylafax handles the dedicated fax lines over a 4port serial card
with external modems.
It would be really nice if I
On 2005.02.27 09:30 Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 09:10:48AM -0800, Lee Howard wrote:
Fax cannot handle a one-second delay. As Steve mentions in the
article, per-spec fax has some timings (particularly silence in
direction switching) set at 75 ms +/- 20 ms. So if the
On 2005.02.27 10:36 Rich Adamson wrote:
Is it at all
realistic to assume that HylaFax could coexist with Asterisk on one
box?
Yes, you could have both Asterisk and HylaFAX running on the same box.
HylaFAX does not require a lot of resources (CPU, RAM, HDD) for small
deployments. I've had
On 2005.02.27 11:28 Jon Gabrielson wrote:
You wouldn't happen to know how to do this would you?
I currently have a box with both hylafax and asterisk installed.
asterisk handles the dedicated voice lines over a t100p and
hylafax handles the dedicated fax lines over a 4port serial card
with
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005, Lee Howard wrote:
On 2005.02.27 11:28 Jon Gabrielson wrote:
You wouldn't happen to know how to do this would you?
I currently have a box with both hylafax and asterisk installed.
asterisk handles the dedicated voice lines over a t100p and
hylafax handles the dedicated fax
I have some extra FXS ports on my channel bank that I could
plug the modems into, but is asterisk's fax support good
enough for a production system? Everything I seem to read
seems to state that asterisk fax detection and fax send/receive
support is still very unreliable or is this only over
On 2005.02.27 22:20 Jon Gabrielson wrote:
I have some extra FXS ports on my channel bank that I could
plug the modems into, but is asterisk's fax support good
enough for a production system? Everything I seem to read
seems to state that asterisk fax detection and fax send/receive
support is still
On Feb 25, 2005, at 11:41 AM, Steve Underwood wrote:
Mark,
In the time it took to write all that you could probably have read up
enough about T.38 to realise you were talking complete rubbish :-)
Gee thanks Steve. And your insight has been absolutely beneficial as
well.
-mark
--
Mark Eissler,
Steve Underwood,
Would you mind summarizing where/how T.38 functions, and maybe how it
compares to the analog fax environment for the asterisk-users arhives?
Seems to be some misunderstanding, and a lot of interest in handling
faxes in various forms via asterisk. If some these approaches were
On 2005.02.25 05:53 Rich Adamson wrote:
Steve Underwood,
Would you mind summarizing where/how T.38 functions, and maybe how it
compares to the analog fax environment for the asterisk-users arhives?
I don't mean to speak for Steve, so I hope that Steve will still reply
if he chooses to, but I like
On Feb 25, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
In a traditional analog fax you have modulated audio data, that is,
the data stream is converted into an audio representation by the
transmitter, and the receiver demodulates the audio stream to produce
the data stream. A lot of data gets packed
Mark,
In the time it took to write all that you could probably have read up
enough about T.38 to realise you were talking complete rubbish :-)
Regards,
Steve
Mark Eissler wrote:
On Feb 25, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Lee Howard wrote:
In a traditional analog fax you have modulated audio data, that is,
24 matches
Mail list logo
