Re: [hylafax-users] No response to MPS or EOP repeated 3 tries

[An Intrepid HylaFax User <hylafax@xxxxxxxxx>]

> I suspect, though, that most serious developers are using Class 2 or 2.0
> modems.

Hah!

We *DREAM* of using our modems in Class 2/2.0 operation.  But we lose the
battle of the (impossible to achieve) compatibility wars and retreat back to
Class 1 operation.  It gives us more successes than failures at least.  With
every modem I've tried, USR, Supra, et al, I get strange and repeatable
problems with sending or receiving faxes in Class 2.0, which go away when I
switch to Class 1.  I'm crossing my fingers with the new Multitech ZBA V.92
modem I just received.  

Maybe it will succeed where others have failed.

I am still wondering, as a prior list poster did - what exactly is so
problematic about making computer faxmodems behave as interoperably as $30
fax machines which have a printer, scanner, modem, and a self-contained
power supply?

I blame the ITU / Global Engineering for super-expensive protocol/standards
documentation.  I remember in my SCSI and CD-ROM engineering days having to
fork hundreds to those ... "people" (desired word deleted for polite
company) for crummy fifth-generation photocopies of standards, or paying
$5,000 to Philips for the CD Information Agreement to get the various
"coloured" books.

I guess what's happened is that engineers just "winged it" on
incomplete/scattered documentation and "well it worked for me" engineering
standards.

I can appreciate the value of proprietary information and all, but what
exactly IS the purpose of keeping such old and commonly used "standards" so
difficult to obtain?

=Rob=

____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Users Mailing List _______________________
  To subscribe/unsubscribe, click http://lists.hylafax.org/cgi-bin/lsg2.cgi
 On UNIX: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx < /dev/null
  *To learn about commercial HylaFAX(tm) support, mail sales@xxxxxxxxxxxx*