Re: [hylafax-users] Incoming fax from older machines are unreadable

["Theo Chao" <theochao@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

I was running libtiff v.3.6.1 without the patch and saw bug 500.  I applied 
the patch and then reinstalled libtiff which didn't fix it.

Actually, after I sent this email yesterday, I upgraded to HylaFax 4.2.1 
with libtiff v.3.7.0.  However, I still have the problem.  How can I be sure 
what version of libtiff is being run by HylaFax?

I don't see anything about error correction in either type of log file. 
Although I didn't say that the fax that works contains "RECV received frame 
number" lines.

I'm sending examples of two of my logs.  47.log is the fax that doesn't work 
and 48.log is the fax that does work.

Thanks,
Theo

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lee Howard" <faxguy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Theo Chao" <theochao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <hylafax-users@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 6:57 PM
Subject: Re: [hylafax-users] Incoming fax from older machines are unreadable


> On 2005.01.27 11:00 Theo Chao wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I'm running HylaFax 4.2.0 with libtiff v3.6.1 with the patch.  Most of
> > the time incoming faxes come through fine.  However, we've noticed
> > that older machines that send faxes to us will not come through
> > correctly (the entire fax is all black).  The main difference between
> > the logs for faxes that work and those that don't work is that "REMOTE
> > wants 1-D MH" in the faxes that don't work.
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions for what's going wrong?
>
> Are you absolutely, positively sure that you have a patched version of 
> libtiff 3.6.1?
>
> You say that the main difference between the logs is "REMOTE wants 1-D 
> MH".  How about ECM (error correction)?  Do the faxes that come out fine 
> use error correction and the ones that don't not have it?
>
> Lee.

Attachment: 47.log
Description: Binary data

Attachment: 48.log
Description: Binary data