Logicwrath

Lowering the resolution of the PDF's will likely further reduce the quality of the PDF's.  The quality is already poor compared to other digital faxing services. I would like to see the limit raised,  25MB is not unreasonable at all.  In my opinion 10MB is unreasonable.  What is the purpose of such a low limit? Can we get an official comment?  I need to take action, and I am currently waiting for an official response.

One of our auto dealers is having trouble faxing using email to fax.  The 2600 MTA fax.zswitch.net is rejecting their faxes because of attachment size. These attachments are typically between 10-15 megabytes.  Ideally we need the system to accept larger attachments like 25-50 megabytes.  However, I would consider 25 megabytes the minimum. It appears that your rejecting all faxes over 10 megabytes.  Additionally, when I read the SMTP message the estimate message length seems to be larger than the attachment + a simple email. Example: This email has an 11 MB PDF. Action: failed Final-Recipient: sanitized-by-me.fax.zswitch.net Status: 5.0.0 Remote-MTA: dns; fax.zswitch.net Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 552 Estimated message length 15949478 exceeds limit of 10485670 When I convert 15949478 to bytes to megabytes it appears to be a 15 MB email.  However, the attachment is only 11 MB, and the simple email is not worth 4 MB. Can we please remove the attachment size limit as soon as possible?  10 MB is far too small, we need at least 25 MB and would prefer 50 MB. -- Also, understand that breaking the PDF into smaller attachments is a problem, when you are faxing a credit company where the single fax number will send the fax randomly to different agents.  So if they send 2 faxes, one might go to one agent, and the other might go to another and this creates huge problems.

Hello, I suspect you will need to make some API calls to get this information.  If I was tasked with this I would dig around the API to list contacts. Check out http://www.getpostman.com/ it makes creating and saving API calls pretty easy.  Not sure if you can craft a single API call that will list all sub account contacts in a single call or not.  However, setting up a postman environment with some commonly used API calls is not a bad idea.

Very cool looking.  Since I last read about your RasPI + Icinga setup I decided to mess around with something myself. Mikrotik started supporting "The Dude" monitoring software again.  This time as a RouterOS package.  The CCR's (Cloud Core Routers), x86, and ARM chipsets can all run "The Dude" now as a remote monitoring agent. If you have an RB3011 or CCR at a clients site you can setup some simple ping services that measure latency and visually look for packet loss or jitter. Example, at my office I just started monitoring latency to the 2600 proxies. http://prntscr.com/b8u8fk Your solution is great.  Nice job.

Dane, You can set the caller ID of a user or a device in advanced call flows.  Go to advanced call flows and then click on devices or users.  The outbound caller ID gets set using some kind of priority tree like: Device -> User -> Main Company or maybe its User -> Device -> Main Company. Hope this helps.

Perhaps something like PingPlotter Pro would be a good fit for what I am trying to do.  We could install it on a server or workstation and let it run for 2-5 days.  Configure it to test all 3 proxies etc. https://www.pingplotter.com/pro.html Something open source would be preferred.  WinMTR would work, but it does not check jitter.

Full disclosure, I am huge Mikrotik fan.  We generally use the hEX for smaller installs where the Internet speed is less than about 65 megabit.  Otherwise, I would look at the RB3011 for closer to 200-250 megabit and the CCR1009 for larger connections. At home I run a CCR1009 because I have a 300 megabit connection that bursts higher. These are configured with mangle rules for packet marking and queue trees priority 1-8 for both upload and download. http://prntscr.com/b2u05s I currently run about 45 mangle rules to mark packets but this will increase over time as we update our golden configuration.

Karl, it sounds like you might be doing more work than you need too.  You could easily get $50 mikrotik firewall and setup QoS.  Additionally, you could still do dual wan, and set the gateway on the phones to use something different than the PCs and continue to use the same wiring.

We are implementing QoS on most installations.  We use Mikrotik firewalls, and setup packet marking and Queue Trees. I will need to figure out how to identify the type of DSL connection someone has so I can factor that in. It would be nice if there was software we could purchase that would run extension to extension calls periodically and test voice quality latency etc.. I really like your idea for the Pi and Icinga.  I think that is a good idea.  Sounds like it would require some effort to setup.

Hello, I am not able to view that thread.  Is it possible to get access to it? "Sorry! You don't have access to the content you requested. If you think you should have access, please contact the administrator of the community."

How do you decide if a client's Internet is going to work well with a hosted VoIP solution?  I have seen online tests that check for packet loss and jitter etc..  Is there software I can purchase or download that documents Internet quality over a period of time?  Specifically, can I set something up to run for a week or two and have some piece of mind that their Internet is reliable enough to run VoIP for x users/lines? How do you feel about setting up hosted VoIP on a DSL connection?  I assume this is going to be case by case.  Some clients might have reliable DSL as they are a short distance from the ISP's CO.  I have seen cases where old phone circuits flood when it rains and issues intermittently show up etc.. Are there other considerations to make when deciding if hosted VoIP is right for a client?

http://help.2600hz.com/requests/22640

Yes, this is a hosted account.

We have the Outbound Fax Error to Email template enabled.  We have it set to send to the original user and a comma separated list of specific users.  I set the faxbox retries to 0 on a demo account so I could test this out. We are not receiving outbound fax error emails in the following conditions: 1. OUTGOING_CALL_BARRED 2. The call dropped prematurely I tried manually creating a PDF that was 17"x11" so I could force a fax failure to see if we would receive the error email when the receiving party did not accept the size of the fax but, the fax went through successfully and it was received at 8.5" x 11".   Did you guys adjust the PDF processing portion to resize the PDF before sending it?  If you did adjust the pre-processing, are you allowing "legal size" (8.5x14)? I am trying to figure out how to force a fax error so I can see if we are receiving the fax errors in other conditions. All things considered I am testing this because we need to know when we will receive an outbound fax error to email.  Ideally, we would receive an email anytime a fax did not go through. The 2 examples in the numbered list above did not create an error email and both of those cases need an error email.

The clients are: Auto Dealerships (faxing credit applications and to documents to the state) Medical Offices Insurance Agents Regarding the ATA comment, I tried making that work with VoIP Innovations in the past and had trouble.  I am not aware of all the special settings and options that would be required to make an ATA working as best as possible.  I will look for that post, or if someone wants to link it that would be great. Additionally, email to fax, fax to email is preferred as it is easier (in my opinion) and I assumed that the connection from the datacenter to the receiving side would be better than the connection from the client office to the receiving side. If you are looking for a reseller to test some TDM equipment you guys are working on that is very interesting to me.  I assume a TDM based solution would be superior and we are certainly working very hard to have a good faxing solution.  As much as we love to hate faxing, we can't get rid of it.  I would prefer not to have to work with yet another vendor just for faxing.  I am not sure what you mean by pain, as in would testing the TDM cause pain or continuing to use VoIP based faxing cause pain.  We are interested in testing this out.  We could either have the TDM based solution available just to us so when a client complains we can test the same fax over the TDM solution or I would even consider setting up clients on the solution if you think it would be at least as reliable as the VoIP based faxing they are using now.  We would also be willing to test and provide feedback on the service.  We could see how the solution affects resolution, quality, reliability etc.. Regarding faxing and fax quality, just this morning we think we might have found an issue where poor bar codes on sent faxes might be causing delays in the processing on the receiving side.

I wanted to also say that I opened the free efax account to test sending faxes from 2600 to efax, not from efax to the 586 863 number we were having trouble with.  I was trying to see if this fax box was having issues sending to multiple carriers.

The main issue with the DCS TCF is as follows: FROM: (586) 248 TO: (586) 863 The (586) 863 number is our personal 3rd party fax account.  We have not onboarded the customer yet, however, this client already has a 3rd party account using the same provider so I was worried if we set them up right now with this number failing if they tried testing on their number with the same provider they might see issues. The other issue I mentioned where a client received a successfully sent message but the fax was never received is as follows.  They fax to this carrier daily and it is very important to them.  I saw 2 failures to this number no response after page error before we saw a success.  Afterwards we were told that they receiving party never got the fax. FROM: (586) 465 TO: (866) 214 I understand your points, I am also very excited to hear about the possibility of 2600 acquiring a TDM bank.  Any assistance you can provide for this is appreciated.  If in general we can report issues and tweak routes to specific numbers that get faxed often that is certainly helpful. I can also provide call id's or any other details if you need/want.  Just let me know.  Thanks!

I have been seeing 50%-65% of the faxes to one of our GFI Faxmaker Online phone numbers fail with the following error code: "Received no response to DCS or TCF" I opened a free efax account and did not have issues sending faxes to that number. I contacted technical support on the receiving side first and they went through troubleshooting. They suggested that we are the only one reporting failing faxes with that error code at the moment and that we should contact our sending carrier to have you try and setup a different route/carrier to test this out. We are supposed to be onboarding a new client and with our test faxes failing consistently we are having to delay this. We also had a report from a different client today that they received a successful message on a fax but it did not actually go through. I can't trust the person who told me this completely. I checked their call logs and saw that the message failed twice before it was successful on the third try. The first couple attempts showed: No response after sending a page I think there is a problem with your carrier or route for faxing. Please advise.

I opened an issue: https://2600hz.atlassian.net/browse/KAZOO-4700

If we want to allow a specific client to make international calls we need to check the box to "Allow customers to make per-minute calls that go over the above limit, and bill them the per-minute cost of the call". If we configure 1 two-way trunk for this client and the client submits 3 faxes simultaneously, 2 of the faxes will get billed out per-minute instead of queuing up for flat rate trunk on the account. If disable "Allow customers to make per-minute calls that go over the above limit, and bill them the per-minute cost of the call" and queue 3 faxes, 2 of them will fail with "OUTGOING_CALL_BARRED" and I assume enter the retry sequence.   Eventually, if the retries are high enough, all 3 faxes will go out.  I was not able to test specifically if "OUTGOING_CALL_BARRED" uses one of the retry attempts or if it just queues it up.  I assume it consumes retries during this phase. If too many faxes get queued, I assume all retries would get consumed and some of these faxes would fail. This example will cause us a headache in certain use cases.  I would certainly prefer the ability to queue the faxes so they wait for an open flat rate trunk.  I already have a ticket open to give us the ability to limit the amount of trunks a fax box can consume at any given time. Additionally, I would like the system to be smart enough to queue up all US/CANADA faxes for a flat rate trunk and then send international faxes/calls per-minute immediately.

I agree.  If PDF1 is before PDF2 it doesnt make a difference, as long as the pages in each PDF are in order.  If this is something that is getting built out you could consider using ascending order for file names 0-9, a-z etc.. so that we could communicate that to end users if they actually cared.

I created another issue to review the outbound fax quality.  I attached an example original PDF for testing and I also included some results of sending the original back and forth between kazoo and GFI Faxmaker Online (rebranded Concord Fax). https://2600hz.atlassian.net/browse/KAZOO-4695 Surprisingly, the company receiving these faxes has not actually complained to our most affected client, I suspect the faxes end up being more of a formality in their process.  However, using the original provided you can really see how bad the outbound fax quality is.

Other third party faxing services will allow users to send more than one attachment with their email to fax services.  The service providers combine the PDFs and then send them as one fax. We have already had to start training certain end users on how to combine multiple PDFs into one before sending their fax.  This creates extra work for users that routinely need to send more than one PDF as a fax. Additionally, it creates more support work for us to help these users work efficiently. It would be great if in the PDF conversion process you would check for and combine multiple PDF attachments into one PDF before sending the fax.  I suspect this would not be a huge amount of work to develop/improve. I opened the following issue regarding this enhancement request: https://2600hz.atlassian.net/browse/UI-2168

I created an enhancement request for creating a cover page based on the email sending the fax. This also allows users to send faxes without actually having or creating a PDF.  We often test clients fax machines by just sending an email with no attachment to our old fax service (GFI Faxmaker Online).  This is super quick for us to do since we don't have to bother with attaching any kind of PDF. https://2600hz.atlassian.net/browse/UI-2167

I created a request to see if it is possible to normalize the page size during conversion to either 8.5x11 or 8.5x14. https://2600hz.atlassian.net/browse/UI-2166