Re: connectivity question
At 21:53 -0800 11/21/11, ah...clem wrote, among other things: >since the DSL modem requires all the phone lines in the house to be >filtered, i'm wondering if that could have something to do with it, >tho i don't see why that would be the cause for the modem to be >invisible to the fax software or the fax/print utility. if it was >related to the filter, i would think the computer would still see the >modem but the modem would not be able to get a dialtone. > >so i'm thinking the 56USBMAC should work, and the problem is something >i'm doing wrong. is there something obvious i'm overlooking? > FAX uses a carrier frequency that is well down into the audio band of telephony which is 300 to 3000 Hz. It's something like 1440 Hz from memory. Other modems use 2400 Hz with a variety of phasing techniques to get up to some 56 kilobits per second. Your DSL modem uses a carrier of a few megahertz with the same kind of phase modulation to get several megabits per second transmission. The two bands are far enough apart to make filtering easy and effective providing it's installed on the pair going from the computer FAX modem to the street. Dialtone is still a matter of drawing DC current from the telephone pair in off-hook mode. It is immune to DSL considerations but you do have to have a land line account with the telco.. I know folks who use an ordinary FAX machine on lines with DSL in use. Plug an ordinary phone into the wall where your computer modem goes. If DSL is not filtered you will hear noise produced by rectification of the DSL carrier in the telephone. Don't have an ordinary phone around? You have joined the modern crowd. Your cell phone won't help. Personally I like having communication that is independent of power losses and solar magnetic storms. -- --> A fair tax is one that you pay but I don't <-- -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
On Nov 21, 10:08 pm, glen wrote: > - Original Message - > I think it really depends on what the OP fax needs are. > Getting back to the original problem, the OP has a need for a fax solution. > Wouldn't a simple installation of the > G4 internal modem work? Perhaps the QS 2002 has one already installed? > They are selling for $5-10 on the LEM list. Don't know if they work with > DSL? --glen this IS the first time i've needed to send a fax in years, which is why i never bothered to upgrade after i stopped using the PCI mac running OS9 as my daily office work computer. but the wife applied for a job at the USPO, and we needed to send a signed consent form for a background check via fax. as several respondents have noted, fax is STILL the only accepted form in certain circumstances where fraud is an issue. as for booting in OS9 and reinstalling the original FAX software from the BD disc, that seemed like a big pain for one fax. and if i'm gonna bother doing all that, i'd just as soon find a way to get it working in OSX, for the next time i need to send a fax. this QS does not have the internal modem. however, i shouldn't NEED an internal modem with the 56USBMAC. it does not connect to the computer via a modem port, it IS a modem, and connects via USB port. i did download the free FAXstf for OSX from the smithmicro website, and installed it. but it is not able to see the modem plugged into the USB port. i tried a USB 2.0 port on a PCI/USB card (NEC chipset), and i also tried plugging the modem into the native USB port on the QS with the same result. both the FAXstf software and the print/fax setup utility were not able to locate the 56USBMAC modem. since the DSL modem requires all the phone lines in the house to be filtered, i'm wondering if that could have something to do with it, tho i don't see why that would be the cause for the modem to be invisible to the fax software or the fax/print utility. if it was related to the filter, i would think the computer would still see the modem but the modem would not be able to get a dialtone. so i'm thinking the 56USBMAC should work, and the problem is something i'm doing wrong. is there something obvious i'm overlooking? -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
On 11/21/11 5:22 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: At 15:24 -0700 11/21/11, Bruce Johnson wrote: About half of all prescriptions filled remotely in the US is done by fax machine. A fax cannot be falsified via a MITM attack like an email can, nor can it be as easily forged, and faxes, unlike emails, support legal signature requirements. Of course we could have a system whereby we did have unfalsifiable emails with valid signatures, but only drug dealers, terrorists and dirty f***ing hippies use email encryption, right? You are s right! Banks, brokers, and credit card folks all want everyone to change to all electronic delivery of statements. They get delivered as PDF files which can easily be modified by any half way intelligent programmer. I figure the only real reason I want the monthly documents is for use in, perish the thought, a problem that requires a court to provide a solution. Can you imagine trying to prove that you did not modify a statement in PDF format? As Bruce says, it is possible to sign things using public-key cryptography. The code is all there and is easily applied to the likes of a PDF or simple text file that contains the data. Any changes would be immediately apparent. All I ask, regularly, is that my bank use the cryptography to sign their documents and declare up front that in any legal proceeding they will honor a match of the crypto hashes in court. I have yet to find a financial establishment that has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about. My stuff gets delivered as paper because I demand it while suggesting the crypto option. Where is my government on the point? Clueless is the answer and it applies to much more. PS: that was in approximately 1997 -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
On 11/21/11 5:22 PM, Doug McNutt wrote: At 15:24 -0700 11/21/11, Bruce Johnson wrote: About half of all prescriptions filled remotely in the US is done by fax machine. A fax cannot be falsified via a MITM attack like an email can, nor can it be as easily forged, and faxes, unlike emails, support legal signature requirements. Of course we could have a system whereby we did have unfalsifiable emails with valid signatures, but only drug dealers, terrorists and dirty f***ing hippies use email encryption, right? You are s right! Banks, brokers, and credit card folks all want everyone to change to all electronic delivery of statements. They get delivered as PDF files which can easily be modified by any half way intelligent programmer. I figure the only real reason I want the monthly documents is for use in, perish the thought, a problem that requires a court to provide a solution. Can you imagine trying to prove that you did not modify a statement in PDF format? As Bruce says, it is possible to sign things using public-key cryptography. The code is all there and is easily applied to the likes of a PDF or simple text file that contains the data. Any changes would be immediately apparent. All I ask, regularly, is that my bank use the cryptography to sign their documents and declare up front that in any legal proceeding they will honor a match of the crypto hashes in court. I have yet to find a financial establishment that has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about. My stuff gets delivered as paper because I demand it while suggesting the crypto option. Where is my government on the point? Clueless is the answer and it applies to much more. Well that goes back to an article in a banking/banker magazine I read in the library at East Central University. They were talking about making everyone use plastic. Sounds like the feds want to track all the moneyy to track us. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
Lo, At 22:24 21/11/2011, you wrote: On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: About half of all prescriptions filled remotely in the US is done by fax machine. A fax cannot be falsified via a MITM attack like an email can, nor can it be as easily forged, and faxes, unlike emails, support legal signature requirements. Of course we could have a system whereby we did have unfalsifiable emails with valid signatures, but only drug dealers, terrorists and dirty f***ing hippies use email encryption, right? Yeah it seem so in America according to the NNSquad (net neutrality) email group that western countries are entering the world of restrictive middle eastern countries. Sadly in the UK we seem to be heading the same way. Its very sad that politicians are so old/ignorant that they do not understand the internet. They probably have secretaries to send emails and thats as close to the net that they get. Martin N Running MorphOS v2.6 (Nov 2010) on Mac Mini, Moderator of MiniDisc,amithlonopen,bwfc Yahoogroups -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
- Original Message - > From: Bruce Johnson > On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: > >> FAX is a nearly extinct technology, killed off by the internet. I can > understand needing to send or perhaps receive "one" FAX, but > "adding FAX capability" when the number of FAX machines available to > communicate with is quickly vanishing seems futile. > > You seem to inhabit a strange world where "that which is not on the > internet" is not, somehow, real. Faxes are in wide, wide usage. We just set > up network fax capability on a large Ricoh network copier/printer for one of > the > larger groups in the College here because their old bank of 4 fax machines > was > dying. They send and receive hundreds of faxes a week. > > About half of all prescriptions filled remotely in the US is done by fax > machine. A fax cannot be falsified via a MITM attack like an email can, nor > can > it be as easily forged, and faxes, unlike emails, support legal signature > requirements. I think it really depends on what the OP fax needs are. I believe fax is a dying technology but not nearly extinct yet. As owner of a small printing company that offers a fax service my copier/printers have fax capabilities that are used daily for many folks who need to send or receive requested documents to banks, real estate companies, academic, legal and medical institutions. Many of these clients are not computer savy or wish to spend the money and/or time to upgrade to a fax modem or an all-in-one machine. Some of these clients have payed more for my service than for a fax or or all-in-one machine costs. AND I have shared that info with them --but still they are not comfortable or confident with the technology. So at one level for many of us the fax as means to send info is dead. For many others it is still essential. Faxes are definitely more secure than email in the hacking sense. However as I stated in a previous thread, some people run for the WhiteOut and alter the documents before they are faxed. Sometimes just do this to hide their phone and address. And sometimes they write over the WhiteOut changing the integrity of the document. So in an analog sense faxes are also subject to fraud. Getting back to the original problem, the OP has a need for a fax solution. Wouldn't a simple installation of the G4 internal modem work? Perhaps the QS 2002 has one already installed? They are selling for $5-10 on the LEM list. Don't know if they work with DSL? And I like Peter's suggestion of a 5-in-1 (all-in-one) idea, simple and to the point and more useful than a fax modem. --glen -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
At 15:24 -0700 11/21/11, Bruce Johnson wrote: > >About half of all prescriptions filled remotely in the US is done by fax >machine. A fax cannot be falsified via a MITM attack like an email can, nor >can it be as easily forged, and faxes, unlike emails, support legal signature >requirements. > > >Of course we could have a system whereby we did have unfalsifiable emails with >valid signatures, but only drug dealers, terrorists and dirty f***ing hippies >use email encryption, right? > You are s right! Banks, brokers, and credit card folks all want everyone to change to all electronic delivery of statements. They get delivered as PDF files which can easily be modified by any half way intelligent programmer. I figure the only real reason I want the monthly documents is for use in, perish the thought, a problem that requires a court to provide a solution. Can you imagine trying to prove that you did not modify a statement in PDF format? As Bruce says, it is possible to sign things using public-key cryptography. The code is all there and is easily applied to the likes of a PDF or simple text file that contains the data. Any changes would be immediately apparent. All I ask, regularly, is that my bank use the cryptography to sign their documents and declare up front that in any legal proceeding they will honor a match of the crypto hashes in court. I have yet to find a financial establishment that has the foggiest idea of what I'm talking about. My stuff gets delivered as paper because I demand it while suggesting the crypto option. Where is my government on the point? Clueless is the answer and it applies to much more. -- --> From the U S of A, the only socialist country that refuses to admit it. <-- -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
On Nov 21, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Kris Tilford wrote: > FAX is a nearly extinct technology, killed off by the internet. I can > understand needing to send or perhaps receive "one" FAX, but "adding FAX > capability" when the number of FAX machines available to communicate with is > quickly vanishing seems futile. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You seem to inhabit a strange world where "that which is not on the internet" is not, somehow, real. Faxes are in wide, wide usage. We just set up network fax capability on a large Ricoh network copier/printer for one of the larger groups in the College here because their old bank of 4 fax machines was dying. They send and receive hundreds of faxes a week. About half of all prescriptions filled remotely in the US is done by fax machine. A fax cannot be falsified via a MITM attack like an email can, nor can it be as easily forged, and faxes, unlike emails, support legal signature requirements. Of course we could have a system whereby we did have unfalsifiable emails with valid signatures, but only drug dealers, terrorists and dirty f***ing hippies use email encryption, right? -- Bruce Johnson University of Arizona College of Pharmacy Information Technology Group Institutions do not have opinions, merely customs -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
>> i'd like to add FAX capability. > > FAX is a nearly extinct technology, killed off by the internet. I can > understand needing to send or perhaps receive "one" FAX, but "adding > FAX capability" when the number of FAX machines available to > communicate with is quickly vanishing seems futile. With the emergence of 5-in-1 Networked and/or WiFi-ed laser printers, Brother MFC-84xx, for example, there is really NO reason NOT TO go with a 5-in-1. FAX, as such, is completely obsolete, UNLESS one is tied to retail services, such as UPS-Store or FedEx-Store. -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
Re: connectivity question
My G5 ran happily with an ethernet router (DSL) and the Apple USB modem plugged into a USB port. Worked OK without any glitches... Ted > > From: ah...clem >To: G-Group >Sent: Monday, 21 November 2011, 7:08 >Subject: connectivity question > >my main computer for office work is a QS'02 running tiger. i've been >using a DSL modem (Siemens Speedstream 4200) hardwired to e-net port >to connect to my ISP. i'd like to add FAX capability. i have an old >BestData 56USBMAC that i used to use with a PCI mac and OS9. but >there are no drivers for OSX on the bestdata website, and plugnplay >didn't work. can anyone recommend a cheap FAXmodem? and how would >that work? can OSX see the FAX modem plugged into a USB port and the >DSL modem plugged into the e-net port simultaneously, and use both >simultaneously? > >TIA > >-- >You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for >those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power >Macs. >The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette >guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml >To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com >For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list > > > -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
connectivity question
my main computer for office work is a QS'02 running tiger. i've been using a DSL modem (Siemens Speedstream 4200) hardwired to e-net port to connect to my ISP. i'd like to add FAX capability. i have an old BestData 56USBMAC that i used to use with a PCI mac and OS9. but there are no drivers for OSX on the bestdata website, and plugnplay didn't work. can anyone recommend a cheap FAXmodem? and how would that work? can OSX see the FAX modem plugged into a USB port and the DSL modem plugged into the e-net port simultaneously, and use both simultaneously? TIA -- You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
