Hylafax Mailing List Archives

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [hylafax-users] modem selection




Lee, so what are the new features of 4.2 and is there any ideal when we will see it as a stable release?  Thanks and keep up the good work.

                           Matt Sorah
                               MIS
                  Eagle Equipment Corp.



hylafax-users-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 03/14/2004 10:04:06 PM:

> On 2004.03.14 16:14 An Intrepid HylaFax User wrote:
> > Quoting Lee Howard <faxguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> > > The HylaFAX servers that I administer are significantly
> > > more interoperable and reliable than was the Canon fax machine that
> > I
> > > used before looking into HylaFAX.
> >
> > You're a fortunate man, or an unlucky Canon owner.
>
> That Canon didn't support ECM.  That's significant, and that's my
> point: it's not fair to compare ECM faxing to non-ECM faxing.
>
> > > The biggest feature difference between most fax machines and most
> > > peoples' HylaFAX installations - with respect to fax protocol - is
> > > ECM.
> >
> > For sending as well as receiving?
>
> Oh yes.
>
> > I've actually had little issues with receiving faxes properly, but
> > then
> > again my needs in this area are minute compared to the outbound
> > direction.
>
> I developed HylaFAX's ECM support largely for my use in receiving, and
> I was pleased with the results.  However, I was quite pleasantly
> surprised to discover that ECM helps sending scenarios just as much if
> not more.  It seems that some receivers have very poor TIFF decoders
> which can lock up, lag, or otherwise delay the post-page message
> response when corrupt data is fed to them.  Unlike non-ECM faxing, in
> ECM faxing the chances that corrupt data ends up being fed to the
> decoder is very slim.  Thus, the likelihood of a "no response to PPS"
> (in ECM) is noticeably less than "no response to MPS/EOP" (the non-ECM
> counterpart).
>
> Any other sending error should almost be non-existent (a few DCNs now
> and then, but not frequent).  Your total errors should not ever be
> greater than 1%.  If they are, then you have problems with hardware or
> with configuration.
>
> All of that said... ECM faxing will still generally take longer than
> non-ECM faxing.  So if your goal is to get as many faxes out as
> possible in a given amount of time without a need for each fax to be
> 100% perfect quality... then using non-ECM is the way to go.
>
> > > 4.1.7 and 4.1.8 were no different from 4.1.6 except for a fix-up of
> > > Page Chopping support (which was accidentally broken in 4.1.6) and a
> >
> > > minor security matter.  So all of the past year of efforts from the
> > > -devel team cannot be found except in CVS HEAD.
> >
> > Eeesh.
>
> Amen to that.
>
> Lee.
>
> ____________________ 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*
>


Home
Report any problems to webmaster@hylafax.org

HylaFAX is a trademark of Silicon Graphics Corporation.
Internet connectivity for hylafax.org is provided by:
VirtuALL Private Host Services