Re: [hylafax-users] modem selection

[Matthew Sorah <matthews@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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*
>