2006/4/23, Armin Schindler <<a href="mailto:armin@melware.de">armin@melware.de</a>>:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sun, 23 Apr 2006, Olivier Krief wrote:<br>> 2006/4/21, Armin Schindler <<a href="mailto:armin@melware.de">armin@melware.de</a>>:<br>> ><br>> ><br>> > But if you want to forward a call (which was already accepted by Asterisk)
<br>> > to another CAPI application, it is not possible. (Well, Eicon has a<br>> > special<br>> > driver which can do a lot of CAPI extensions, but I did not try this yet).<br>> > So if you want to do that, I suggest using just chan-capi for receiving
<br>> > faxes and maybe another application for sending faxes.<br>> ><br>> > Armin<br>> ><br>> This is exactly the heart of my question : is it possible to "accept" a call<br>> with capi-enabled Asterisk, detect it's a fax and "forward" it somehow to a
<br>> hardware-enforced fax application on the same server.<br>><br>> Doing that you could get higher fax speeds and reliability and interesting<br>> Asterisk features.<br><br>Why do you think you will get higher fax speeds or reliability?
<br>There is no difference in receiving a fax over CAPI between chan-capi<br>and any fax-software like capi4hylafax. Both use the same CAPI commands<br>with the use of the card's fax capabilities.</blockquote><div><br>I thought that receiving fax with Asterisk always meant to use one way or another, spandsp library.
<br>That's the reason why I thought fax-enabled boards provide higher fax speeds or reliability.</div>(I don't mean using spandsp isn't reliable : I mean fax boards are said and "priced" to be more reliable and it's worth to evaluate the benefit of using them).
<br><br>When writing "receiving a fax over CAPI", do you mean "receiving a fax over CAPI with Asterisk and processing it with spandsp" ?<br><br>Regards<br></div><br>