Re: [hylafax-users] modem selection

[Lee Howard <faxguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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*