| 00:03.03 | *** join/#asterisk life_of_e (~life_of_e@108-95-189-245.lightspeed.irvnca.sbcglobal.net) |
| 00:03.06 | *** join/#asterisk zopsi (~zopsi@irc.dir.ac) |
| 00:53.08 | Kobaz | kerouac[m]: sounds like codec issue. upload the entire log for the call with pjsip logging on |
| 01:05.35 | *** join/#asterisk ketas- (~ketas@206-162-190-90.dyn.estpak.ee) |
| 01:24.21 | *** join/#asterisk pchero (~pchero@211.178.226.108) |
| 01:31.40 | *** join/#asterisk ketas (~ketas@208-191-35-213.dyn.estpak.ee) |
| 02:09.53 | *** join/#asterisk fstd_ (~fstd@unaffiliated/fisted) |
| 02:28.01 | *** join/#asterisk tsal (~tsal@i59F4A5A0.versanet.de) |
| 06:42.42 | *** join/#asterisk Ner0Zer0 (~Ner0Zer0@87.253.63.54) |
| 07:50.42 | *** join/#asterisk BakaKuna (~Thunderbi@2a02-a446-ae46-1-d3eb-542d-f79d-6daa.fixed6.kpn.net) |
| 08:03.10 | *** join/#asterisk gerhard7 (~gerhard7@86-87-238-48.fixed.kpn.net) |
| 08:37.36 | kerouac[m] | Kobaz: hmmm. I've trued to turn pjsip logging on, but asterisk CLI says `No such command 'pjsip' (type 'core show help pjsip' for other possible commands)` |
| 08:38.05 | kerouac[m] | But I have pjsip.conf and it works as far as I know. |
| 08:42.10 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 08:43.04 | kerouac[m] | Sorry, I've got what was the reason. Is this log verbose enough? https://termbin.com/cloe |
| 09:25.15 | *** join/#asterisk lankanmon (~LKNnet@cpeb4fbe4e331bd-cm64777d632380.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com) |
| 11:24.02 | *** join/#asterisk drathir_tor (~drathir@gateway/tor-sasl/drathir) |
| 11:48.24 | *** join/#asterisk rpifan (~rpifan@p200300d2671bda008d2cb776da8172cd.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 13:29.12 | Kobaz | kerouac[m]: I don't know webrtc at all, but you have opus/g722/pcmu/pcma in your SDP codecs. Do you have any of these enabled on your pjsip endpoint? |
| 13:34.46 | *** join/#asterisk rpifan (~rpifan@p200300d2671bda0004dd1310081a6402.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 14:01.57 | avb | kerouac[m]: the furst issue is doubango |
| 14:02.15 | avb | dont use code which comes from uncompetent people |
| 14:02.34 | avb | https://sipjs.com/ |
| 14:03.09 | avb | sipml code is full of an outdated hacky code |
| 14:06.40 | *** join/#asterisk paulgrmn (~paulgrmn@c-98-250-183-21.hsd1.mi.comcast.net) |
| 14:15.45 | Kobaz | ah |
| 14:15.55 | Kobaz | avb: good to know, we're going to start doing some webrtc soon |
| 14:16.43 | Kobaz | kerouac[m]: https://sipjs.com/guides/server-configuration/asterisk/ |
| 14:34.12 | avb | webrtc is pretty easy to do this days |
| 14:34.19 | Kobaz | apparently |
| 14:34.26 | avb | finally spec is stablized |
| 14:34.31 | Kobaz | sipjs claims a dozen lines of code for realtime chat |
| 14:34.32 | avb | stabilized |
| 14:34.46 | Kobaz | i remember writing a chat application 15 years old, it was a lot more than that |
| 14:34.58 | avb | websocket helps a lot yes |
| 14:35.05 | Kobaz | yeah, this was pre-websockets |
| 14:35.11 | avb | without websockets polling been a mess |
| 14:35.26 | Kobaz | omg that was awful, open web connections with long-polling |
| 14:35.42 | Kobaz | never really got reconnection working that well |
| 14:35.46 | avb | im using sipjs for last 5 years in hell of a lot of projects |
| 14:35.49 | Kobaz | stuff would just time out and sit there |
| 14:35.55 | *** join/#asterisk sponji (~i5@172.58.110.138) |
| 14:36.03 | avb | asterisk/kamailio + sipjs = piece of cake |
| 14:36.29 | Kobaz | and eat it too? |
| 14:36.38 | avb | haha |
| 14:46.16 | *** join/#asterisk BakaKuna (~Thunderbi@2a02-a446-ae46-1-956c-c2b6-a0bc-f2da.fixed6.kpn.net) |
| 14:46.26 | avb | ive been told here that even video should be working better now via asterisk |
| 14:46.37 | Kobaz | nice |
| 14:46.49 | avb | pjsip had lot of improvements for video |
| 14:47.17 | avb | but still, I believe not as good as a pure webrtc video |
| 14:49.43 | *** join/#asterisk BakaKuna (~Thunderbi@2a02-a446-ae46-1-1170-b01c-6fd4-2a7e.fixed6.kpn.net) |
| 14:59.16 | *** join/#asterisk BakaKuna (~Thunderbi@2a02-a446-ae46-1-9c2e-c57b-50a7-1431.fixed6.kpn.net) |
| 15:09.13 | *** join/#asterisk AsteriskRoss (~AsteriskR@37.157.48.2) |
| 15:14.25 | *** join/#asterisk BakaKuna (~Thunderbi@2a02-a446-ae46-1-f1d0-80cd-84b7-e9ae.fixed6.kpn.net) |
| 15:22.51 | *** join/#asterisk kharwell (uid358942@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qfopiqglxxcdqjng) |
| 15:22.52 | *** mode/#asterisk [+o kharwell] by ChanServ |
| 15:28.45 | *** join/#asterisk bford (uid283514@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-ukthcwovtcdubolg) |
| 15:28.45 | *** mode/#asterisk [+o bford] by ChanServ |
| 16:02.21 | *** join/#asterisk Janos (~textual@201.204.94.76) |
| 16:05.27 | *** join/#asterisk retentiveboy (~retentive@2601:cf:4500:5ea0:c9c3:35c:2d71:2756) |
| 16:13.53 | igcewieling | from bandwidth.com " Our lowest monthly commit is $1500 a month. " Not terrible. |
| 16:15.16 | Kobaz | oh |
| 16:15.22 | Kobaz | i was with them back when they had no minimums |
| 16:15.33 | Kobaz | their platform is definitely oldschool |
| 16:15.42 | Kobaz | there's a different portal for everything you want to do |
| 16:17.35 | igcewieling | We only spedn $300 - $00 month on toll free numbers, which what I was considering moving to them. |
| 16:17.42 | igcewieling | 300-400/month |
| 16:17.45 | Kobaz | Oh, that's it |
| 16:19.15 | Samot | Kobaz: They have consolidated portals. |
| 16:19.21 | Kobaz | they do now? that's good |
| 16:20.11 | Samot | When was the last time you used them? |
| 16:20.17 | Kobaz | for-evv-aaar |
| 16:20.25 | igcewieling | TFs have fallen out of fashion so we don't have much usage. |
| 16:20.28 | Kobaz | gotta be like 5 years now |
| 16:21.11 | Kobaz | Toll Free's have redundancy at the resporg (depending on the resporg), so, corporate customers are definiteky going to keep using them |
| 16:21.42 | igcewieling | large corporate customers maybe. |
| 16:22.56 | igcewieling | I just want a GUI doesn't looks better and works better than the 1990s ActiveX style web UIs VZ has. |
| 16:23.45 | Samot | I use their APIs. |
| 16:24.06 | igcewieling | The APIs look nice too. |
| 16:24.10 | Samot | Still use the GUIs but the APIs good and I can run services for updates. |
| 16:24.27 | Samot | So they'll post updates to my listening services for things like ports, etc. |
| 16:25.16 | igcewieling | I'd use their API to stop users from putting TNs into our internal GUI unless they are actually on our account at the carrier. |
| 16:25.22 | Kobaz | yeah that's what i'm working on... my current main carrier doesn't do port-in postbacks |
| 16:25.24 | Kobaz | which is really annoying |
| 16:25.40 | Samot | Oh this includes port outs |
| 16:27.54 | Samot | I've been using Bandwidth for a long time. In that time Bandwidth is still Bandwidth. Pretty much every other carrier I've worked with in that same time frame is someone else now. In some cases, 2 or 3 or more times over. |
| 16:28.14 | Kobaz | ah |
| 16:28.27 | igcewieling | they did buy voxbone, but I noticed that too when I was researching them. |
| 16:28.32 | Kobaz | yeah i started with vitelity, and they have been pushed around a few places |
| 16:28.33 | Samot | Broadvox -> Onvoy -> Intelliquent -> SINCH |
| 16:28.38 | Kobaz | now part of intelliquent |
| 16:28.53 | Samot | I started with Bandwidth and Broadvox back in the day |
| 16:28.55 | Kobaz | vitelity is hella expensive |
| 16:29.13 | Samot | Vitelity got rid of low end resellers. |
| 16:29.31 | Samot | Converted them to normal users if they didn't commit to $1000 or more. |
| 16:29.39 | igcewieling | I've have my personal numbers with Vitelity since at least 2005. maybe as early as 2002 |
| 16:31.56 | Samot | Hell when Sangoma bought VoIP Innovations they changed pricing structures too |
| 16:32.17 | Samot | They wanted higher volume commitments to keep pricing and they went from a flat rate to rate decks. |
| 16:36.15 | Kobaz | well flat rate is hard because, you get these fraudsters dialing high rate destinations in NANP |
| 16:36.33 | Samot | That's untrue. |
| 16:36.43 | Samot | It's not hard because of that. |
| 16:36.53 | Kobaz | unless the carrier just blocks everything higher than your flat rate and sends you back a 5xx |
| 16:37.04 | Samot | That's on the carrier. |
| 16:37.07 | Kobaz | Yeah |
| 16:37.13 | Kobaz | But that's why it's hard to get a good flat rate |
| 16:37.27 | Kobaz | unless you have high commits |
| 16:37.29 | Samot | Is it? |
| 16:37.37 | Kobaz | Well, that's been my experience |
| 16:37.48 | Samot | Telenyx, Plivio, Twilio, BulkVS... |
| 16:37.49 | Kobaz | We're trying to get 1 and 2 million commits on flat rate and barely anyone is offering |
| 16:38.07 | Samot | Those are just the top off my head of "disruptive pricing providers" |
| 16:39.42 | Kobaz | telnyx pay as you go .005 is way more than we're paying now with LCR |
| 16:39.56 | Samot | But no commitment |
| 16:40.08 | Samot | And it's super lower than standard retail rates. |
| 16:40.15 | Kobaz | I don't have recent commit pricing from them, but the last time I talked to them it was still high |
| 16:40.17 | Samot | That is low level wholesale rates. |
| 16:40.33 | Samot | Anyone can get. |
| 16:40.36 | Samot | *Anyone* |
| 16:40.39 | Kobaz | yeah for sure |
| 16:41.01 | Samot | Because $0.003-0.006 is low level wholesale. |
| 16:41.11 | Kobaz | yup |
| 16:41.31 | Kobaz | I guess i'll need to poke at that again, it's just been a number of years since we went shopping |
| 16:41.35 | Samot | So yes, anyone can get wholesale rates with no commitment from numerous providers. |
| 16:50.23 | igcewieling | I'd not be concerned about the commitment if we were not under contract with our existing carriers. We'd have to move enough numbers to BW to meet the minimums, but not so many we don't meet our minimums with our current carriers. I don't think it will be an issue, but it does complicate things. |
| 17:05.09 | igcewieling | Anyone here familiar with the phrase "take or pay"? I'd not heard it before today. It means "minimum commitment" |
| 17:05.56 | Kobaz | sounds like it |
| 17:06.07 | Kobaz | like if you use $250 of a $500 commit, they'll just bill you the extra |
| 17:06.47 | igcewieling | I assumed it is a "marketing bullshit" term. |
| 17:07.15 | igcewieling | like "new and improved" or "best in the business". |
| 17:07.31 | Kobaz | 33% more free |
| 17:08.02 | igcewieling | I regret pushing for Level 3 all those years ago. They are expensive. |
| 17:08.12 | Samot | Always have been. |
| 17:09.00 | Kobaz | last time i dealt directly with level3, a minimum commit was a million minutes a month |
| 17:09.09 | igcewieling | I wanted a 2nd carrier and at the time (2010?) they were one of the few large SIP carriers around. |
| 17:21.51 | Samot | One of my first places used them. Dumped them because they were expensive. |
| 17:22.19 | Samot | Moved it all to Bandwidth for the most part. |
| 17:50.14 | *** join/#asterisk sharrap (8717344e@135-23-52-78.cpe.pppoe.ca) |
| 17:54.17 | *** join/#asterisk gschanuel (~gschanuel@201.89.125.40) |
| 17:57.23 | sharrap | Hey all, I've been investigating some issues with our AGI scripts and as far as I can tell variables are getting substituted before asterisk parses the command or something, so e.g. if I have foo=hello,world and then run AGI(echo.agi,${foo}) I end up with two arguments ($1=hello $2=world) being sent to echo.agi. Quoting doesn't seem to fix this, |
| 17:57.24 | sharrap | since if foo contains its own quotes those quotes can quote/unquote things (so e.g. "${foo}" would work for the value of foo above, but if foo was changed to "hello,world it wouldn't work since the quote at the start of foo closes the quote in the agi line). |
| 17:57.24 | sharrap | Is there a workaround for this, or is this unexpected behaviour and it's likely I have something else weird causing this in my dialplan? |
| 17:57.25 | sharrap | (Asterisk 16.2.1. In this example, `echo.agi` is just a minimal reproduction bash script which sends `VERBOSE` messages one per argument back to asterisk so that I can see them in the logs. I've had the same issue with scripts that dump the text to disk or to send it to other services, so I don't think the issue is in the VERBOSE echoing) |
| 17:57.25 | sharrap | Thanks in advance! |
| 18:06.39 | Kobaz | upload your console log with agi set debug on |
| 18:07.20 | Kobaz | sharrap: also, update to 16.16.1 if you can (bug fixes + security fixes) |
| 18:22.12 | *** join/#asterisk AsteriskRoss (~AsteriskR@37.157.48.2) |
| 18:23.59 | *** join/#asterisk fstd_ (~fstd@unaffiliated/fisted) |
| 18:28.07 | sharrap | Sorry for the delay, this should be everything relevant: https://pastebin.com/2fU5Ap5V |
| 18:37.09 | sharrap | And then with AGI debug enabled: https://pastebin.com/q2tzYnsa |
| 18:40.53 | Samot | sharrap: AGI(command,arg1,[arg2[,...]]) |
| 18:40.54 | *** join/#asterisk sponji (~i5@172.58.110.138) |
| 18:41.18 | Samot | So ${foo} being hello,world is passing that just like that |
| 18:41.27 | Samot | So the the AGI() you've just passed two variables. |
| 18:41.29 | igcewieling | yup, our Level 3 commitment is 1 million mins month |
| 18:42.10 | sharrap | Right, Samot, but how (if at all) can I get around that? I'd like to send a hypothetically arbitrary string in a variable as one argument regardless of its contents |
| 18:42.13 | Samot | sharrap: Because you end up with AGI(echo.agi,hello,world) |
| 18:42.29 | Samot | sharrap: Don't use comma's. |
| 18:42.49 | sharrap | Okay, so basically there's no way to do so? Thanks! |
| 18:42.55 | Samot | What? |
| 18:43.08 | Samot | FOO=hello-world |
| 18:43.18 | Samot | Parse hello-world by - |
| 18:43.21 | file | or store it in a variable, and request it in the AGI |
| 18:43.21 | sharrap | Right, what I mean is I can't send arbitrary text: it needs to be sanitized first |
| 18:43.25 | igcewieling | sharrap: you could spend a bunch of time escaping commas, I guess, but it seems rather pointles if you can just not use commas as part of your data. |
| 18:43.28 | Samot | Or what file said. |
| 18:43.39 | Samot | sharrap: You should never send arbitrary text. |
| 18:43.51 | Samot | Regardless of what code you use. That's just asking for trouble. |
| 18:44.00 | igcewieling | as usual, file's suggestion is the best. |
| 18:44.53 | Samot | Suck up. |
| 18:45.34 | sharrap | Samot: I was hoping for there to be a way to do so safely but it sounds like that isn't possible. Thanks! Will likely go with file's suggestion then |
| 19:54.44 | *** join/#asterisk tsal (~tsal@i59F4A5A0.versanet.de) |
| 20:39.56 | *** join/#asterisk estragon (~estragon@lfbn-nic-1-96-192.w2-15.abo.wanadoo.fr) |
| 21:36.36 | igcewieling | someone is sending us a 200+ fax fax. |
| 21:36.53 | Kobaz | a faxxy fax |
| 21:40.32 | igcewieling | I wonder if I should limit fax calls to 2 hours |
| 21:40.48 | Kobaz | haha |
| 21:42.07 | Samot | Nothing says that fax will be delivered in a single two hour call |
| 21:42.24 | Samot | There could be numerous retransmissions/retries. |
| 21:42.45 | igcewieling | The call I looked at was, in fact, longer than 2 hours. |
| 21:43.01 | Samot | It is possible. |
| 21:43.14 | Samot | Just as it is possible it could take multiple tries. |
| 21:43.23 | electronic_eel | some users are just crazy |
| 21:44.08 | Samot | How so? |
| 21:44.29 | electronic_eel | sending a 200+ page document via fax? |
| 21:44.35 | Samot | Yes |
| 21:44.38 | Samot | Why is that crazy? |
| 21:45.18 | electronic_eel | why would you bother trying to get that through with the slow transmission, all the transmission errors and restarts and so on? |
| 21:45.23 | igcewieling | It isn't any more crazy than using a phone line to call into a service to listen to a radio station. Sure you can do it, no it isn't all that good of an idea. |
| 21:45.31 | Samot | It was a trick question. |
| 21:45.32 | Kobaz | because hospitals and lawyers and etc etc all use fax |
| 21:45.33 | electronic_eel | sending a pdf via email is waay faster |
| 21:45.44 | Kobaz | and people don't know any better |
| 21:45.52 | Samot | FAX = Facsimile |
| 21:45.57 | Samot | You know what that is right? |
| 21:46.16 | igcewieling | not to mention that we convert the incoming fax to pdf and send it via.....e-mail. |
| 21:46.19 | Kobaz | Looks like Face-Smile but really isn't? |
| 21:46.25 | Kobaz | igcewieling: haha yeah that's the best part |
| 21:46.37 | Samot | An exact copy of the original |
| 21:46.43 | *** join/#asterisk ^MillerBoss (~biffies@gives.you.more.taste.at.only.96.calories.millerboss.com) |
| 21:46.52 | Samot | The method of a FAX has actual weight in numerous industries. |
| 21:47.05 | Samot | It means from Sender to Receiver it was processed a certain way. |
| 21:47.34 | Kobaz | Right but, modern fax systems process and reprocess and then it's all meaningless if someone really dug into it |
| 21:47.35 | electronic_eel | the best part is that they probably printed it out from a pdf first, then put it into their fax machine and at the receive-side it is converted to a (much worse) pdf again |
| 21:47.57 | Kobaz | Because asterisk fax will receieve in a tiff and then have to convert it to a pdf |
| 21:48.09 | Samot | Only if you need to |
| 21:48.16 | Samot | tiff can be viewed just fine |
| 21:48.36 | Kobaz | sure but most systems convert to pdf |
| 21:48.47 | Kobaz | and then the tiff/pdf could have been manipulated prior to getting to the email recipient |
| 21:48.52 | Samot | Also in industries that have real rules about faxes... |
| 21:49.03 | Samot | That also means that its "at rest" state is considered. |
| 21:49.10 | Kobaz | Yeah, there's plenty of rules and legal justifications |
| 21:49.22 | Kobaz | Doesn't mean it's not a crap old technology |
| 21:50.47 | electronic_eel | but the legal justifications usually are based around the fact that the means to modify a document on the send or receive side were not readily available |
| 21:51.05 | Kobaz | haha, that 200 page fax would be $140 to receive if you were using faxio |
| 21:51.18 | electronic_eel | this assumption isn't true anymore, anyone can easily load a scanned document into photoshop and modify it |
| 21:51.33 | Kobaz | I keep trying to get them to give me wholscale pricing, but who in their right mind would pay 7c/page to do faxing these days |
| 21:51.42 | Samot | Except fax transmissions put timestamps on the outputted documents. |
| 21:52.11 | Kobaz | Samot: there's nothing to prevent someone from store/manipulate/forward |
| 21:52.15 | Samot | electronic_eel: So sure you can go into PDF or whatever but there are things the fax process does. |
| 21:52.43 | electronic_eel | the receiver can easily tweak the timestamps on the files or logs |
| 21:52.51 | electronic_eel | when it is all digital |
| 21:52.54 | Samot | You're missing what I am saying. |
| 21:52.59 | Kobaz | And then you fax your photoshopped copy to the recipient with the terms changed, poof, now the fax on the receiver side has correct timestamps that it's printing as it receives |
| 21:53.02 | Samot | I run a digital fax system. |
| 21:53.07 | Samot | You know it stills STAMPS THE TIME |
| 21:53.12 | Samot | On *each page* |
| 21:53.17 | Samot | After it has processed it. |
| 21:53.20 | Kobaz | Uh huh.... |
| 21:53.33 | Samot | So when you get that PDF, every page has the header stamp on it |
| 21:53.39 | Samot | with data like time, caller, etc. |
| 21:53.39 | Kobaz | And then there's nothing to prevent some down-the-line nefarious processor from modifying it |
| 21:53.42 | Kobaz | Right |
| 21:53.47 | Kobaz | I can edit that with an image edit |
| 21:53.52 | Samot | Oh and how faxes look |
| 21:53.55 | Kobaz | match the font and everything |
| 21:54.03 | Samot | They also process it like a fax machine would. |
| 21:54.05 | electronic_eel | yes, but why is that timestamping that important when the receiver can modify it? |
| 21:54.19 | Samot | OK. |
| 21:54.23 | Samot | Fax is old, fax sucks |
| 21:54.25 | Samot | We can move on. |
| 21:54.26 | Kobaz | Yup |
| 21:54.32 | Samot | Clearly you don't do it enough. |
| 21:54.35 | electronic_eel | it is the same quality as an email. it also has received headers with timestamps |
| 21:54.39 | Samot | No |
| 21:54.47 | Samot | The document looks like it went through a fax machine. |
| 21:54.51 | Kobaz | But we're not sure why you're defending it as an official/verifiable means of sending documents when it clearly isn't |
| 21:55.01 | Samot | Because the process is the process. |
| 21:55.09 | Samot | I have been running digital fax servers for over a decade. |
| 21:55.16 | Samot | The fax still looks like a fax from a machine. |
| 21:55.19 | Kobaz | We don't disagree with that |
| 21:55.22 | Samot | Even if it's all emailed to me. |
| 21:55.27 | Samot | So again, it's the *process* |
| 21:55.42 | Kobaz | There's nothing preventing me from running through a gimp filter to make it look like a fax |
| 21:55.43 | Samot | It makes the document harder to alter in other programs. |
| 21:55.49 | electronic_eel | with "the process" you mean what people are used to, not what is really going on |
| 21:55.55 | Samot | OK. |
| 21:56.01 | Samot | electronic_eel: No |
| 21:56.03 | Samot | FFS. no. |
| 21:56.08 | Kobaz | and there's also nothing preventing me from taking letters that already went through the fax process |
| 21:56.11 | Samot | I just told you what the digital fax servers do |
| 21:56.12 | Kobaz | copying them from the SAME PAGE |
| 21:56.21 | Kobaz | and pasting them over what I want to modify |
| 21:56.24 | Samot | They accept the document, they render it like a fax machine and they pass it along |
| 21:56.33 | Samot | It looks like it came out a fax machine. |
| 21:56.49 | Kobaz | So you are manipluating your uploads to make it look like a fax machine? |
| 21:57.01 | Kobaz | Doesn't that completely negate everything you were just trying to defend about the process? |
| 21:57.16 | Samot | Nevermind. You are not listening at all |
| 21:57.19 | Samot | You want to hear what you want. |
| 21:57.28 | Kobaz | No, none of us are listening, we're reading |
| 21:57.32 | electronic_eel | what does "looking like from a fax machine" help if i can counterfeit that easily? |
| 21:57.33 | Samot | Yup. |
| 21:57.43 | Samot | Never mind |
| 21:57.57 | Samot | There are still large industries that use fax. |
| 21:58.26 | Samot | I get that for Billy Bob's Tire Shack or whereever you have a PBX it might not be a big deal |
| 21:58.30 | Kobaz | I'm hearing that: 1) You have a process, 2) this process makes pages look like a fax 3) people say fax is secure because of this process 4) yet faxes are easily manipulated and 5) faxes are god-awful slow |
| 21:58.34 | Kobaz | Did I miss anything? |
| 21:58.42 | Samot | Kobaz: It's not my process. |
| 21:58.54 | Samot | Kobaz: I run a fax server from Scrypt. |
| 21:59.18 | Samot | Like any other digital fax services, they still have to process the fax like a fax machine |
| 21:59.22 | Kobaz | We don't dispute that there's still a huge following/need for fax |
| 21:59.29 | Kobaz | We're just saying the process has nothing to do with security and validation |
| 21:59.43 | Samot | The process of accept and rendering the data is the same as a fax machine |
| 21:59.52 | Kobaz | Okay |
| 22:00.00 | Kobaz | That's great |
| 22:00.11 | Samot | So the end result is still a PDF that looks like a faxed document. |
| 22:00.25 | Kobaz | So it's faking a fax process, that's awesome |
| 22:00.25 | Samot | Down to the codes, time stamps and other data a fax machine prints on each page. |
| 22:00.53 | Kobaz | faking/replicating/implementing/copying/ whatever you want to call it |
| 22:01.02 | Kobaz | If this box can do it, someone else can as well |
| 22:01.21 | Samot | Sure as long as the fax number is pointed to that box |
| 22:01.33 | Kobaz | it's nothing to do with your box |
| 22:01.39 | Samot | OK. |
| 22:01.40 | Kobaz | I'm not saying there's anything wrong with your setup |
| 22:01.46 | Samot | So yes, fax can be tampered with. |
| 22:01.59 | Kobaz | Just playing devils advocate here, Fax in *general* is quite readily able to be manipulated |
| 22:02.04 | Kobaz | That's the point |
| 22:02.11 | Samot | Vs email? |
| 22:02.17 | Kobaz | Yeah, sure |
| 22:02.22 | Kobaz | Vs anything |
| 22:02.26 | Samot | It's easier than email? |
| 22:02.33 | electronic_eel | and this ability to tamper with it changed in time: when fax was introduced it was very hard to do, now it is commonplace tech |
| 22:02.46 | Kobaz | Depends on your definition of easy, and if someone has the tools available |
| 22:02.55 | Samot | Well |
| 22:03.02 | Samot | You said that it's easier than email |
| 22:03.03 | Kobaz | If someone has the tools available to manipulate fax and not email, well then maniplating fax is easier |
| 22:03.06 | Samot | I am calling BS on that |
| 22:03.31 | Kobaz | I never said anything is easier than the other |
| 22:03.39 | Kobaz | in fact the only time i mentioned easy was just now when you did |
| 22:04.07 | Samot | Alright. |
| 22:04.07 | Kobaz | Samot just likes to argue |
| 22:04.12 | Samot | Sure. |
| 22:04.15 | Samot | That's what it is. |
| 22:04.26 | Samot | Can't have a discussion with two different views. |
| 22:04.36 | Samot | That is automatically an argument. |
| 22:04.39 | Kobaz | I'm just messing with you |
| 22:05.01 | Kobaz | on the arguing part... |
| 22:05.01 | Samot | Don't agree with you, must be hostile and argumentative. |
| 22:05.36 | Kobaz | but anyway |
| 22:05.45 | Kobaz | I 100% go with electronic_eel |
| 22:06.03 | Samot | Oh I already got that. |
| 22:06.18 | Kobaz | and, Like I said. I don't think there's anything wrong about your setup or anything related to your fax stuff |
| 22:06.34 | Kobaz | There's nothing to defend, since I'm not going at that |
| 22:06.57 | Samot | So why does someone send a 200+ page fax? |
| 22:07.11 | Samot | Outside of the reasons I just gave, perhaps they can't support an attachment that large to email. |
| 22:07.13 | Kobaz | Just saying *in general* fax is not the high and mightey thing that people claim it to be, security wise... despite the legal use and all that |
| 22:07.31 | Samot | Or are worried that the receiver can't get an attachment that big. |
| 22:07.39 | Samot | Or they are worried it will end up in SPAM |
| 22:07.40 | Kobaz | My guess? Becasuse "they've always done it that way" |
| 22:07.57 | Samot | Sure, I'm just highlighting reasons. |
| 22:08.04 | Samot | Why someone would be so crazy. |
| 22:08.23 | Kobaz | Same reason why some of my clients fax 50 pages to the IRS |
| 22:08.27 | Samot | FAX has a level of expectation like POTS/regular phone service. |
| 22:08.29 | Kobaz | They only take fax. because... reasons |
| 22:08.34 | Samot | FAX has a level of expectation like POTS/regular phone service. |
| 22:08.40 | Kobaz | It does, even though a huge part of faxing now does not anymore |
| 22:08.55 | Samot | Oh and here's something funny. |
| 22:09.10 | Samot | There has been an increase in fax usage overall in the last few years. |
| 22:09.12 | Samot | Rising. |
| 22:09.15 | Samot | True story. |
| 22:09.18 | Kobaz | hehe |
| 22:09.18 | Kobaz | fun |
| 22:09.27 | Kobaz | you know what's great |
| 22:09.44 | Kobaz | faxing online using a web fax service, to send to someone's DID that's also on some online web fax service |
| 22:09.49 | Kobaz | and paying for the pleasure |
| 22:10.16 | Samot | I'm not sure I follow that. |
| 22:10.35 | Kobaz | like, i use my efax.com to send to their vfax.com |
| 22:10.36 | Kobaz | or whatever |
| 22:10.41 | Samot | OK. |
| 22:16.18 | Kobaz | I get a lot of complaints from new users on our faxing service. like "hey uhh, i sent a 40 page fax and it says it's still processing, it's ben 5 minutes, what the heck?" |
| 22:16.37 | Kobaz | And my response, well, even though it's online, it's still fax, and fax can be 1-2 minutes per page |
| 22:17.03 | Kobaz | so much fun |
| 22:29.46 | *** join/#asterisk ilius (~ilius@c-98-33-209-27.hsd1.ut.comcast.net) |
| 22:32.30 | ilius | https://pastebin.com/raw/4hwx7uEa <- I'm getting some weird huge numbers for standard deviations for rtcp jitter, packet loss, and rtt - is this expected behavior? |
| 22:49.49 | seanbright | i would say no |
| 22:51.32 | seanbright | i'm getting numbers larger than the number of atoms in the observable universe - is that intended? |
| 22:54.10 | ilius | seanbright, hehe - yup, that's why I'm scratching my head. Either there is some kind of undocumented stddev format, I wonder if I should probably report a bug. |
| 22:55.09 | ilius | I have to wonder if this is just me, or if no one ever looks up the stddev variables and don't care. :) |
| 23:04.23 | seanbright | best to check JIRA and search for existing bugs. i feel like i've seen RTCP related stuff there. |
| 23:04.27 | seanbright | https://issues.asterisk.org/ |
| 23:04.30 | seanbright | ilius: ^^^ |
| 23:31.27 | ilius | seanbright, I see one about divide-by-zero that you were even involved in. Can't find anything about insanely huge numbers though. |
| 23:47.33 | seanbright | interesting |