[asterisk-users] Fax detection ...
Jay R. Ashworth
jra at baylink.com
Mon Oct 2 08:58:43 MST 2006
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:43:44AM +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
> Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 02:58:37PM -0700, Lee Howard wrote:
> >>Well, fax detection isn't entirely reliable anyway. Even if you assume
> >>that your fax detection feature and operation is flawless in properly
> >>detecting fax tones (and that most likely would be a specious
> >>assumption), not all calling fax machines send fax tones.
> >
> >So, y'know, that assertion gets made a lot.
> >
> >What's the turn rate of fax machines in the market? 3 years? 5? CNG
> >tones are *well* over 10 years old, no?
>
> What relevance does that have to CNG? It was a feature of the original
> spec 30 years ago.
Well, perhaps I wasn't paying attention, but I thought that CNG tones
*had as their purpose* making receive FAX detection trivial. That
would tend to make the question on-point, would it not?
> >What percentage of fax calls are sent without CNG tones these days?
>
> Quite a lot. A large number of FAX machines have CNG turned off. On many
> machines, if select features like sharing a line between FAX and
> answering machine CNG, CED and various other useful behaviour might be
> disabled.
My personal experience is that I've never seen a consumer-grade fax
machine with send-CNG turned off, and I don't *think* I've ever seen
one on which there was a knob *to* turn it off; I would be less sure
about fax modems -- those may have a knob, but I would expect it to
default on.
Could you expand on what behaviour you think CNG breaks? Cause I'm not
modeling it, mentally...
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth jra at baylink.com
Designer Baylink RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24
St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274
"That's women for you; you divorce them, and 10 years later,
they stop having sex with you." -- Jennifer Crusie; _Fast_Women_
More information about the asterisk-users
mailing list