Re: [hylafax-users] Receiving Remote TSI name string (vs. remote number)

["Ron Pettis" <rspettis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi John, 

Thanks for the follow-up!  I know what you're saying and I thought the same thing.  (Also FYI, we're not using any caller ID.)
So, I am hoping there is a class 1 modem command that would query a "name TSI" instead of a "number TSI" (ok, obviously limited knowledge here on my end).

Our users' HP1240 fax machines have two fields to identify the fax machines in the "Basic Fax Header" setup. 

Field#1 asks: "Enter your name" and many ASCII values can be used (including upper/lowercase letters).
Field#2 asks: "Enter your number" and only 0123456789()WR*-+ are allowed.  (Why W and R are allowed is beyond me).
Note Field#2 is not allowed to be blank.

When faxing from these HP1240's to HylaFAX, the fax header is printed at the top of each incoming page normally, we see:

| Date/Time   |   Field#1 name |  Field#2 number  | faxpage # |

And in an associated email that we send, the subject line reads:  Facsimile received from <Field#2 number>. (We'd rather have name)
---------------------
Now, what really puzzles me....Sometimes we get junk faxes that even though the header has BOTH a name and number (as above), HylaFAX has extracted the TSI with the Field#1 name instead of Field#2 number.

Like:
Nov 27 09:59:14.70: [ 1927]: --> [7:CONNECT]
Nov 27 09:59:15.82: [ 1927]: --> [2:OK]
Nov 27 09:59:15.82: [ 1927]: REMOTE TSI "Mortgage Services"
Nov 27 09:59:15.82: [ 1927]: <-- [9:AT+FRH=3\r]
Nov 27 09:59:15.84: [ 1927]: --> [7:CONNECT]
Nov 27 09:59:16.12: [ 1927]: --> [2:OK]

.........Now, it'd actually be PERFECT if I could have BOTH the name and number.  But I'd settle for just the name, since it'd be great to manage the recvstats reports (to exec mgmt) with names instead of numbers, and also for the emailed subject lines.

I saw someone has modified their setup to crossreference this "automanually" and generously contributed it at:
http://www.hylafax.org/archive/2002-01/msg00173.php
(and associated thread)

In there, the author writes:

SENDER2=`cat log/c$COMMID | awk -F\" ''/FTSI/' {print $2}' | \
        sed -e 's/[ ]*//g' | \
        awk 'getline {print $0}'`

I'm wondering if these items are relevant to what I'm looking for, but my "$COMMID" logs don't contain any "FTSI" text. (I confess I don't know the full dynamics of the code, either).  But in plain english I can tell the author is piping each log into awk finding instances of FTSI and piping that result into sed.  If only I had FTSI?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------


>>> "John Hiemenz" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 12/28/06 11:37AM >>>

I may be off on this one, but I think if the sender doesn't setup their
TSI it will automatically default to the sending number. (?)  If the
number is unlisted or has caller ID blocking, it may show as 'UNKNOWN' or
'UNSPECIFIED' or even just blank.

I have received some faxes with an ASCII text TSI, but most are numerical
phone numbers.  There was nothing I did on my end to change this, it was
just how they come across.

Steve Friedl's Unixwiz.net Tech Tips writes:
During the initial setup of the call, both stations swap ID strings:
CSI - Called Subscriber Identification
TSI - Transmitting Subscriber Identification
 The answering machine announces its CSI string to the caller, and the
caller responds with its TSI string, and they are typically phone
numbers. The fax specification (CCITT T.30 5.3.6.2.4) limits these
strings to 20 characters from the set "digits, space, and +". But in
practice, almost all fax systems allow full ASCII.

Based on what I've been able to research, the receiving end has nothing to
do with the TSI.

> Hello everyone!
>
> I've checked the archives on items such as "remote TSI", "ascii TSI
> string", "remote identifier", and there doesn't appear to be an exact
> match on our issue (though I certainly could've missed it).
>
> When receiving faxes, we'd like to use the remote fax machine's identifier
> NAME instead of the NUMBER as the SENDER variable.
>
> Obviously, our log looks something like this (but nowhere in the logs does
> the ASCII remote identifier name ever show up):
> ...
> Dec 27 16:11:05.99: [ 1781]: <-- [9:AT+FRH=3\r]
> Dec 27 16:11:06.74: [ 1781]: --> [7:CONNECT]
> Dec 27 16:11:08.33: [ 1781]: --> [2:OK]
> Dec 27 16:11:08.33: [ 1781]: REMOTE TSI "1234567890"
> Dec 27 16:11:08.33: [ 1781]: <-- [9:AT+FRH=3\r]
> Dec 27 16:11:08.35: [ 1781]: --> [7:CONNECT]
> Dec 27 16:11:08.76: [ 1781]: --> [2:OK]
> Dec 27 16:11:08.76: [ 1781]: REMOTE wants 14400 bit/s
> ...
>
> We're using HylaFAX 4.3.0 in a receive-only setup with Class 1.0 Rockforce
> DUO+.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> ____________________ 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@xxxxxxxxx* 
>



____________________ 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@xxxxxxxxx* 


____________________ 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@xxxxxxxxx*