Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-11-02 Thread VoIP Question
SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here) From: Kevin P. Fleming kpflem...@digium.com To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Date: Thursday, 21 October, 2010 16:11:00 On 10/20/2010 11:35 AM, VoIP Question wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Kevin P. Flemingkpflem...@digium.com

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-11-02 Thread VoIP Question
Thanks Kevin, We managed to get the ReceiveFAX going, while making some minor changes to the code, like, for example, using the ${UNIQUEID} for the file name. Regards, Michael Original Message Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-21 Thread Kevin P. Fleming
On 10/20/2010 04:07 PM, VoIP Question wrote: Hello again, If I set a peer to use G.711 only, they try to process a sent fax in G.711, but Asterisk doesn't like it: WARNING[4903]: res_fax.c:1709 sendfax_t38_init: Audio FAX not allowed on channel 'SIP/Main-000a' and T.38 negotiation

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-21 Thread Kevin P. Fleming
On 10/20/2010 11:35 AM, VoIP Question wrote: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Kevin P. Fleming kpflem...@digium.com mailto:kpflem...@digium.com wrote: This was fixed in Asterisk 1.6.2.12 and later releases, so if you were running the current version, you wouldn't have experienced

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-21 Thread Kevin P. Fleming
On 10/20/2010 09:35 AM, VoIP Question wrote: Thank you Kevin, We'll upgrade our server to 1.6.2.12 and try again. Another question: Is there (expect for the admin guide that we didn't succeed to understand the example in) an example somewhere for ReceiveFax full extensions.conf diaplan?

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-20 Thread VoIP Question
Thank you Kevin, We'll upgrade our server to 1.6.2.12 and try again. Another question: Is there (expect for the admin guide that we didn't succeed to understand the example in) an example somewhere for ReceiveFax full extensions.conf diaplan? We would like to allocate one of the extensions that

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-20 Thread David Backeberg
On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM, VoIP Question voip.quest...@gmail.com wrote: Another question: Is there (expect for the admin guide that we didn't succeed to understand the example in) an example somewhere for ReceiveFax full extensions.conf diaplan? We would like to allocate one of the

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-20 Thread VoIP Question
Hello again, If I set a peer to use G.711 only, they try to process a sent fax in G.711, but Asterisk doesn't like it: WARNING[4903]: res_fax.c:1709 sendfax_t38_init: Audio FAX not allowed on channel 'SIP/Main-000a' and T.38 negotiation failed; aborting. What can I do to enable it? Thanks,

[asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread VoIP Question
Hello, I'm trying to send a tif file, using Fax for Asterisk and the call is executed, but when I get the reINVITE with T.38 data, the local server doesn't recognize that we have this capability and sends a 488 message. These are the logs: --- SIP read from UDP:xxx.xxx.xxx.xx8:5060 ---

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread David Backeberg
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, VoIP Question voip.quest...@gmail.com wrote:   Hello, I'm trying to send a tif file, using Fax for Asterisk and the call is executed, but when I get the reINVITE with T.38 data, the local server doesn't recognize that we have this capability and sends a 488

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread VoIP Question
It's set to yes for this peer. also t38pt_udptl is set to yes. :( On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:12 PM, David Backeberg dbackeb...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:36 AM, VoIP Question voip.quest...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, I'm trying to send a tif file, using Fax for Asterisk

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread David Backeberg
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:21 AM, VoIP Question voip.quest...@gmail.com wrote: It's set to yes for this peer. also t38pt_udptl is set to yes. :( You don't say anything about what you're trying to send / receive against. Here's how you should troubleshoot: * start with a 'real fax machine'

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread VoIP Question
We don't have an ATA and fax machine. The whole point (as I specified in the header and initial message) is the attempt to use Fax for Asterisk to send the message. As I showed in the logs, the remote carrier sends a proper T.38 reINVITE, but our Asterisk doesn't accept, despite the fact that

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread Danny Nicholas
From what I have read over the last few months, you should invest in Motrin before trying T.38 faxing with or without FFA - it can (possibly) be done, but it has beaten some folks into the ground trying it. Could be a codec issue. --

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread David Backeberg
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:48 AM, VoIP Question voip.quest...@gmail.com wrote: The whole point (as I specified in the header and initial message) is the attempt to use Fax for Asterisk to send the message. Asterisk can handle audio passthrough faxing. I'm talking audio faxing over SIP. You

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread VoIP Question
Digium claims that their FFA is the best and most compatible solution and they give one channel for free, but do not provide support for those that do not buy more channels, but why buy more channels if the free/test one doesn't work? I know they read (and sometimes respond) to this list, so I

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread Andrew Latham
I think the generic throw away gmail address will keep many people from answering... ~ Andrew lathama Latham lath...@gmail.com * Learn more about OSS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software * Learn more about Linux http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux * Learn more about Tux

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread David Backeberg
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 1:01 PM, VoIP Question voip.quest...@gmail.com wrote: Digium claims that their FFA is the best and most compatible solution and they give one channel for free, but do not provide support for those that do not buy more channels, but why buy more channels if the free/test

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread Kevin P. Fleming
On 10/19/2010 10:48 AM, VoIP Question wrote: We don't have an ATA and fax machine. The whole point (as I specified in the header and initial message) is the attempt to use Fax for Asterisk to send the message. As I showed in the logs, the remote carrier sends a proper T.38 reINVITE, but

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread Kevin P. Fleming
On 10/19/2010 12:01 PM, VoIP Question wrote: Digium claims that their FFA is the best and most compatible solution and they give one channel for free, but do not provide support for those that do not buy more channels, but why buy more channels if the free/test one doesn't work? I know they

Re: [asterisk-users] FFA SendFax rejects T.38 reINVITE (488 Not acceptable here)

2010-10-19 Thread VoIP Question
Fair enough Kevin :-) It's just that your documentation for this product is so limited that without extensive search online and the assistance of others, it would have been impossible for us to make any progress and we haven't reached the ReceiveFax part yet ;) Anyway, specifically, we installed