![]() |
Thanks for the direction but I still seem to have problems with this issue (shown below) After applying the patch calls qualifying the reject patterns in etc/cid seem to be rejected EXAMPLE: Sep 8 15:06:46 ANSWER: CID NUMBER "O" NAME "O" Sep 8 15:06:52 ANSWER: CID REJECTED However, recently, the same call shown above is shown to be rejected but, a fax was infact received for the same (rejected) timestamp shown above. This was verified via the contents of the session log for that call shown below. (partial log) ....... Sep 08 15:07:31.67: [ 111]: TRAINING succeeded Sep 08 15:07:31.68: [ 111]: MODEM input buffering enabled Sep 08 15:07:31.68: [ 111]: MODEM set XON/XOFF/FLUSH: input ignored, output generated Sep 08 15:07:31.68: [ 111]: <-- [11:AT+FRM=146\r] Sep 08 15:07:32.47: [ 111]: --> [7:CONNECT] Sep 08 15:07:32.47: [ 111]: RECV: begin page Sep 08 15:07:59.57: [ 111]: RECV: 1124 total lines, 0 bad lines, 0 consecutive bad lines Sep 08 15:07:59.57: [ 111]: RECV: end page Sep 08 15:07:59.57: [ 111]: --> [10:NO CARRIER] Sep 08 15:07:59.57: [ 111]: MODEM set XON/XOFF/DRAIN: input ignored, output disabled Sep 08 15:07:59.57: [ 111]: MODEM input buffering disabled Sep 08 15:07:59.57: [ 111]: <-- [9:AT+FRH=3\r] Sep 08 15:07:59.67: [ 111]: --> [7:CONNECT] Sep 08 15:08:00.75: [ 111]: --> [2:OK] Sep 08 15:08:00.75: [ 111]: RECV recv EOP (no more pages or documents) Sep 08 15:08:00.76: [ 111]: DELAY 150 ms Sep 08 15:08:00.91: [ 111]: <-- [9:AT+FTH=3\r] Sep 08 15:08:01.09: [ 111]: --> [7:CONNECT] Sep 08 15:08:01.09: [ 111]: <-- data [3] Sep 08 15:08:01.09: [ 111]: <-- data [2] Sep 08 15:08:02.27: [ 111]: --> [2:OK] Sep 08 15:08:02.27: [ 111]: RECV send MCF (message confirmation) Sep 08 15:08:02.29: [ 111]: RECV FAX (00000246): from , page 1 in 0:31, INF, 3.85 line/mm, 1-D MR, 14400 bit/s Sep 08 15:08:02.29: [ 111]: RECV FAX (00000246): recvq/fax00149.tif from , route to <unspecified>, 1 pages in Sep 08 15:08:02.31: [ 111]: <-- [9:AT+FRH=3\r] Sep 08 15:08:02.87: [ 111]: --> [7:CONNECT] Sep 08 15:08:03.84: [ 111]: --> [2:OK] Sep 08 15:08:03.84: [ 111]: MODEM input buffering enabled Sep 08 15:08:03.84: [ 111]: RECV FAX: bin/faxrcvd "recvq/fax00149.tif" "cuaa2" "00000246" "" Sep 08 15:08:04.53: [ 111]: RECV FAX: end Sep 08 15:08:04.53: [ 111]: SESSION END ----- Original Message ----- From: "Campbell McKilligan" <cowboycam@2die4.com> To: "alt" <syncope@speakeasy.net> Cc: <hylafax-users@hylafax.org> Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 10:05 PM Subject: Re: [hylafax-users] QualifyCID -and- (HylaFAX Version 4.1) > First test your etc/cid file with tsitest: > > [campbell@viper etc]# which tsitest > /usr/sbin/tsitest > > [campbell@viper etc]# tsitest /var/spool/fax/etc/cid > ready> 911 > [check ^0299290282$] > [check ^0398702955$] > [check ^.*$] > accept (matched by ^.*$) > ready> > > AS CID, TSI and tsitest use the same regex code this will make sure that the > regex code is not broken in your version and that your etc/cid file is correct. > > There is a patch you can apply to util/RegEx which stops Hylafax from > incorrectly rejecting CID or TSIs (depending on which one you are checking) > when the received string is empty. > > There is a second patch which ensures that CID passed on for checking properly > once it is received. Just because CID numbers appear in the logs, it doesn't > guarantee that it got sent of for checking properly. > > alt wrote: > > > The bottom line is: > > inserting !^<pattern>$ <-- as the first line in > > /var/spool/hylafax/etc/cid -- eg. ^8005551212$ > > also inserting ^.*$ <-- as the last line in > > /var/spool/hylafax/etc/cid > > > > The <pattern> shown in the first line is being accepted by > > hylafax1 when it should be 'CID REJECTED.' > > > > Looking at this from another angle, should I only place the > > following: > > ^<pattern>$ <-- as the first line in > > /var/spool/hylafax/etc/cid -- eg. ^8005551212$ > > The above line will *not be accepted/answered by hylafax. > > > > Lastly when I try inserting (as an only line in the etc/cid)--> > > ^$ <-- all incoming calls are accepted. It seems to me > > QualifyCID is not working properly. Its my understanding that ^$ > > means a null or empty string. The CID info is in-fact available > > (showing in my server log) What I think may be happening is; the > > patterns placed in etc/cid (in this instance) are being matched > > against the TSI info --and not-- CID info > > > > With my per-modem config files set to ... > > ServerTracing: 1 > > SessionTracing: 15 > > serverlogs do in fact show CID name and number However; my > > session logs will not show CID name and number information with > > the setting shown above. The session logs do show 'cid rejected' > > when QualifyCID is defined but etc/cid is empty. > > > > I don't need or use TSI screening. I need and want to screen via > > CID, providing we can figure what's going incorrectly here. > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. ____________________ 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@hylafax.org < /dev/null *To learn about commercial HylaFAX(tm) support, mail sales@hylafax.org.*