<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 2:43 PM, Bryant Zimmerman <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:BryantZ@zktech.com">BryantZ@zktech.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<span style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:10pt"><p><span style="font-family:tahoma;color:#333333;font-size:10pt">
</span>I concur we use the "h" extension to log inbound faxes to a database and then we process them outside the asterisk platform. Our biggest issue with ReceiveFAX is about a 20% t.38 negotiation fail ratio. We then force fall back to t.30 for the next call from that number. We would like to see better success with t.38. Today our primary server has had 910 faxes of which 707 negotiated t.38, 44 have failed darn robo dialers, The rest failed the first attempt and came in T.30 on the second call</p>
</span></blockquote><div><br>I'm not sure how much of this is the fault of FFA versus the fault of shoddy t.38 implementations out in the wild. I've had a ton of headaches trying to get t.38 solutions implemented with various ITSP's and FFA. I've heard that the free SpanDSP version has better negotiation rates, however, I have not personally tested them. In the end, for mission critical fax applications (yes, these still exist, especially in the financial sector), I tend to go with a dedicated line and DID used in conjunction with an FXO device or T1 device, an IAXModem connection over a local, low-latency LAN, and setup a dialplan pass-through to a hylafax server.<br>
</div></div>-- <br>Thanks,<br>--Warren Selby, dCAP<br><a href="http://www.selbytech.com" target="_blank">http://www.SelbyTech.com</a><br><br>