I am working on some fax tools for some of my users. I am reading the https://wiki.asterisk.org docs for faxing. Is see Application_SendFax and Application_SendeFax has one been discondinued? Any feed back on using the res_fax module would be apperciated. Any examples or other. Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110119/71849387/attachment.htm>
On 01/19/2011 02:05 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> I am working on some fax tools for some of my users. I am reading the > https://wiki.asterisk.org docs for faxing. > Is see Application_SendFax and Application_SendeFax has one been discondinued? > Any feed back on using the res_fax module would be apperciated. Any examples or > other.There was a typo in the res_fax documentation. Application_SendeFax should be the correct documentation. I don't know where Application_SendFax is coming from - it's probably old. When the next import happens, Application_SendFax should be replaced by the correct version (then I'll try to remember to remove the bogus SendeFax copy).
On 01/19/2011 02:05 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> I am working on some fax tools for some of my users. I am reading the > https://wiki.asterisk.org docs for faxing. > Is see Application_SendFax and Application_SendeFax has one beendiscondinued?> Any feed back on using the res_fax module would be apperciated. Anyexamples or> other.From: "Jason Parker" <jparker at digium.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:19 PM There was a typo in the res_fax documentation. Application_SendeFax should be the correct documentation. I don't know where Application_SendFax is coming from - it's probably old. When the next import happens, Application_SendFax should be replaced by the correct version (then I'll try to remember to remove the bogus SendeFax copy). Jason thanks for the clarification on this. If I start my development with the res_fax_spandsp.so module. Should all of my code be compatible with the res_fax_digium.so module? I want to be able to get things running and tested and move to the digium supported option in the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110119/db445caf/attachment.htm>
On 01/20/2011 11:47 AM, Steve Underwood On 01/20/2011 11:11 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:> On 01/19/2011 02:30 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote: >> On 01/19/2011 02:05 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote: >>> I am working on some fax tools for some of my users. I am reading the >>> https://wiki.asterisk.org docs for faxing. >>> Is see Application_SendFax and Application_SendeFax has one been >> discondinued? >>> Any feed back on using the res_fax module would be apperciated. Any >> examples or >>> other. >> >> *From*: "Jason Parker" <jparker at digium.com> >> *Sent*: Wednesday, January 19, 2011 3:19 PM >> There was a typo in the res_fax documentation. Application_SendeFax >> should be >> the correct documentation. I don't know where Application_SendFax is >> coming >> from - it's probably old. When the next import happens, >> Application_SendFax >> should be replaced by the correct version (then I'll try to remember to >> remove >> the bogus SendeFax copy). >> >> Jason thanks for the clarification on this. >> >> If I start my development with the res_fax_spandsp.so module. Shouldall>> of my code be compatible with the res_fax_digium.so module? I want tobe>> able to get things running and tested and move to the digium supported >> option in the future. > > The choice of technology module is mostly irrelevant; that was the > whole point of splitting res_fax out from them. If you use the > applications and other features of res_fax, it won't matter which > underlying technology module is loaded. >Well, people do get problems with the Digum FAX software, which go away when they switch to spandsp. Its best to test with the code you intend to deploy. Steve Steve is there any real compelling reason to res_fax_digium.so over the res_fax_spandsp.so? I was thinking Digium module was likely to be better is this wrong based on what people are seeing? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110120/fc2b5bf9/attachment.htm>
Steve Are there any undocumented options available with ReceiveFAX and the res_fax_spandsp module. I am having issues with getting t.38 to negotiate with Level 3 faxes but if I force t.30 the fax comes in. But the fax does not fall back t.30 if the t.38 fails Thanks Bryant Zimmerman (ZK Tech Inc.) 616-855-1030 Ext. 2003 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110126/a4ec118d/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:50 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/26/2011 12:42 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> Steve > > Are there any undocumented options available with ReceiveFAX and the > res_fax_spandsp module. > I am having issues with getting t.38 to negotiate with Level 3 faxes but > if I force t.30 the fax comes in. But the fax does not fall back t.30 if > the t.38 failsYou haven't posted any logs of the failing attempts, or packet captures of the SIP traffic, so it's pretty much impossible for anyone to help you debug this (anyone who tried would just be guessing). Steve did not write res_fax (which where SendFAX and ReceiveFAX come from), and there are no 'undocumented' options available for it, because it's open source and the source code shows all the options that are available. If you would like to try to figure out what is going on, start by posting a *complete* log file from Asterisk for a failed inbound FAX attempt, with 'core set debug 10' and 'core set verbose 10' and all logger levels (including 'fax') enabled. ---------------------------------------------- Kevin These were attached to another post. Here are the links again Fax Debug.txt cap-t38.pcap And by the way thank you for your response it is appreciated. Thanks Bryant Zimmerman (ZK Tech Inc.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110126/4d30967b/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 2:29 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/26/2011 01:19 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> > *Sent*: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 1:50 PM > *To*: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com > *Subject*: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax > > On 01/26/2011 12:42 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote: >> Steve >> >> Are there any undocumented options available with ReceiveFAX and the >> res_fax_spandsp module. >> I am having issues with getting t.38 to negotiate with Level 3 faxesbut>> if I force t.30 the fax comes in. But the fax does not fall back t.30if>> the t.38 fails > > You haven't posted any logs of the failing attempts, or packet captures > of the SIP traffic, so it's pretty much impossible for anyone to help > you debug this (anyone who tried would just be guessing). > > Steve did not write res_fax (which where SendFAX and ReceiveFAX come > from), and there are no 'undocumented' options available for it, because > it's open source and the source code shows all the options that are > available. > > If you would like to try to figure out what is going on, start by > posting a *complete* log file from Asterisk for a failed inbound FAX > attempt, with 'core set debug 10' and 'core set verbose 10' and all > logger levels (including 'fax') enabled. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Kevin > > These were attached to another post. Here are the links again > Fax Debug.txt ><http://webmail.zktech.com/public/downloadfile.aspx?f=KERoF6PWf6e2FK8S5zgEDs 02rFGdd7zE0AIG7tjbCR9a06oFY1NwFap58zDWva3BcdOp%2b%2f%2fuBo8%3d>> cap-t38.pcap ><http://webmail.zktech.com/public/downloadfile.aspx?f=ulHIhepag5qoKm0cTUmljm T%2f7YCcOPvzlyZcnZg%2fG2B25W%2fsSr6Uwbu%2bET3kbKw84pTJjtuqrPQ%3d> Unfortunately that log capture is incomplete; it doesn't include any of the messages that res_fax emits as it goes through T.38 negotiations. Please ensure that your 'console' channel in logger.conf has 'debug,verbose,warning,notice,error,fax' enabled and that you have 'core set verbose 10' and 'core set debug 10' set before the call attempt begins (or at least before ReceiveFAX is executed). If the server is only processing this particular call, then 'sip set debug on' would also be helpful. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin I will get the additional debugs done when there is no other load on the fax. Is there a way for me to force t.38 off for a call but to allow t.38 for other calls. What I am thinking is if a t.38 fails to flag the next call from that number to g711 audio. This would at least let me work arround the issue for now where t.38 fails with some endpoints but not others and the g711 audio will work. The issue I am seeing is it appears that with some endpoinds on Level 3 that the t.38 tunnel comes up fine but no fax data starts flowing but this only is happening with faxes coming from some Cisco gateways sending out via PRI using t.30 Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110126/d36da993/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 4:52 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/26/2011 03:14 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> Is there a way for me to force t.38 off for a call but to allow t.38 for > other calls. What I am thinking is if a t.38 fails to flag the next call > from that number to g711 audio. This would at least let me work arround > the issue for now where t.38 fails with some endpoints but not others > and the g711 audio will work. The issue I am seeing is it appears that > with some endpoinds on Level 3 that the t.38 tunnel comes up fine but no > fax data starts flowing but this only is happening with faxes coming > from some Cisco gateways sending out via PRI using t.30No, unfortunately there isn't a way to do that that I can see. It wouldn't be terribly hard to add to res_fax.c, but I don't think we ever thought of doing that before. ---------------------------------------- With out this I have no way to force the fall back then and the faxes will always fail in this case because t38 successfully negotiates.. Do you have any other ideas? If I pick arround in the source what might it take to add another option to the ReceiveFAX to only do g711 audio? Is this somthing that I could get submitted back into the tree if I can figure it out? Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110126/7e0fcfcb/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 5:21 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/26/2011 04:16 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> > *Sent*: Wednesday, January 26, 2011 4:52 PM > *To*: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com > *Subject*: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax > > On 01/26/2011 03:14 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote: > >> Is there a way for me to force t.38 off for a call but to allow t.38for>> other calls. What I am thinking is if a t.38 fails to flag the nextcall>> from that number to g711 audio. This would at least let me work arround >> the issue for now where t.38 fails with some endpoints but not others >> and the g711 audio will work. The issue I am seeing is it appears that >> with some endpoinds on Level 3 that the t.38 tunnel comes up fine butno>> fax data starts flowing but this only is happening with faxes coming >> from some Cisco gateways sending out via PRI using t.30 > > No, unfortunately there isn't a way to do that that I can see. It > wouldn't be terribly hard to add to res_fax.c, but I don't think we ever > thought of doing that before. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > With out this I have no way to force the fall back then and the faxes > will always fail in this case because t38 successfully negotiates.. Do > you have any other ideas? > If I pick arround in the source what might it take to add another option > to the ReceiveFAX to only do g711 audio? Is this somthing that I could > get submitted back into the tree if I can figure it out?Most definitely; I can see cases like yours where someone would want to be able to forcibly disable T.38 for specific calls for troubleshooting purposes. In fact... if you give me about 15 minutes, I'll commit a patch to Asterisk trunk to add an option to do that, and you can backport it to the version you are using :-) ---------------------------------------- Kevin That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the exclusion to shut off the T38. Where will the patch be posted? Much thanks on this. Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110126/2c5f5913/attachment.htm>
Kevin> > That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added > a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the > exclusion to shut off the T38. > > Where will the patch be posted?http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 ------------------------------------- Kevin I downloaded 1.8.2.3 and copied the modified version of res_fax.c into my the res folder. I built and installed the version of asterisk. When I use the new n option with ReceiveFAX I get a bunch of WARNING messages on the console that state. [Jan 26 20:43:38] WARNING[23393]: chan_sip.c:6047 sip_write: Asked to transmit frame type slin, while native formats is 0x4 (ulaw) read/write = 0x4 (ulaw)/0x4 (ulaw) If I shut of the n option it goes back to the normal behavior. It appears that there is somthing missing in the n option and it is not causing it to fall back to audio only mode. as it would if t38pt_udptl=no Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110126/1ae13b7a/attachment.htm>
> Kevin > > That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added > a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the > exclusion to shut off the T38. > > Where will the patch be posted?http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 Kevin I tried everthing I could think of to get the n option to work last night but it would not do a complete shut off of the T.38 option and would not receive a fax. What do you need from me on the debug side so I can help you get it working as expected? Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110127/eee28e9d/attachment.htm>
On 01/27/2011 09:21 AM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> >> Kevin >> >> That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added >> a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the >> exclusion to shut off the T38. >> >> Where will the patch be posted? > > http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 > > Kevin > > I tried everthing I could think of to get the n option to work last > night but it would not do a complete shut off of the T.38 option and > would not receive a fax. What do you need from me on the debug side so I > can help you get it working as expected?My schedule is pretty full today, but I will take another look over the code and see what might be going on. -- Kevin P. Fleming Digium, Inc. | Director of Software Technologies 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - USA skype: kpfleming | jabber: kfleming at digium.com Check us out at www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 10:31 AM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/27/2011 09:21 AM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> >> Kevin >> >> That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added >> a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the >> exclusion to shut off the T38. >> >> Where will the patch be posted? > > http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 > > Kevin > > I tried everthing I could think of to get the n option to work last > night but it would not do a complete shut off of the T.38 option and > would not receive a fax. What do you need from me on the debug side so I > can help you get it working as expected?My schedule is pretty full today, but I will take another look over the code and see what might be going on. -- Kevin Thanks I am continuing with other parts of my fax code as well for now. I will test any changes as you are able to make them. Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110127/d6fd7c3a/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:08 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/27/2011 09:21 AM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> >> Kevin >> >> That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added >> a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the >> exclusion to shut off the T38. >> >> Where will the patch be posted? > > http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 > > Kevin > > I tried everthing I could think of to get the n option to work last > night but it would not do a complete shut off of the T.38 option and > would not receive a fax. What do you need from me on the debug side so I > can help you get it working as expected?Revision 304599 should fix this (and I also changed the option letter from 'n' to 'F' since it really means 'force audio'). ----------------- Kevin I will rebuild and test in a bit. Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110127/50843a95/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:08 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/27/2011 09:21 AM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> >> Kevin >> >> That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self I added >> a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the >> exclusion to shut off the T38. >> >> Where will the patch be posted? > > http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 > > Kevin > > I tried everthing I could think of to get the n option to work last > night but it would not do a complete shut off of the T.38 option and > would not receive a fax. What do you need from me on the debug side so I > can help you get it working as expected?Revision 304599 should fix this (and I also changed the option letter from 'n' to 'F' since it really means 'force audio'). _____________________________________________________________________ Kevin The 304599 rev does seem to work good. I just finished my testing on it and the F option works great. I have three more test to do and if they pass it should be good to go. When could it get into the releases? Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110131/ffae1671/attachment.htm>
---------------------------------------- From: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2011 5:13 PM To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax On 01/31/2011 02:08 PM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote:> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Kevin P. Fleming" <kpfleming at digium.com> > *Sent*: Thursday, January 27, 2011 3:08 PM > *To*: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com > *Subject*: Re: [asterisk-users] res_fax > > On 01/27/2011 09:21 AM, Bryant Zimmerman wrote: >> >> > Kevin >> > >> > That is grate. I dove into the code and tried to add it my self Iadded>> > a F option but I have not figured out the right spot to force the >> > exclusion to shut off the T38. >> > >> > Where will the patch be posted? >> >> http://svnview.digium.com/svn/asterisk?view=rev&rev=304342 >> >> Kevin >> >> I tried everthing I could think of to get the n option to work last >> night but it would not do a complete shut off of the T.38 option and >> would not receive a fax. What do you need from me on the debug side soI>> can help you get it working as expected? > > Revision 304599 should fix this (and I also changed the option letter > from 'n' to 'F' since it really means 'force audio'). > _____________________________________________________________________ > > Kevin > > The 304599 rev does seem to work good. I just finished my testing on it > and the F option works great. > I have three more test to do and if they pass it should be good to go. > When could it get into the releases?It's a new feature, so it won't go into any existing release branches; the first release that will have this addition is Asterisk 1.10.1. Of course, the patch is quite small as you've seen, so it will be easy for you to apply it to your installations. _____________________________________________________________________ Kevin I just replaced the res_fax.c file with the one from 304599. Would I just keep doing that as I step forward on versions of 1.8.x? If this is the case how would I get any other critical changes to res_fax.c that may occur after rev 304599? How would I create a patch that would allow me to apply it to additional release version of asterisk. Sorry for the simple questions I do most of my dev on windows machines and this process is a still a bit confusing to me. Thanks Bryant -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20110131/260fc4f6/attachment.htm>