IFX Mail Archive: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

IFX Mail Archive: Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

Fwd: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..

Richard Shockey (rshockey@ix.netcom.com)
Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:06:47 -0600

I'm forwarding this message from the fax list.

We've been having a little disscussion over there on the cover page
"watermarking" issues that we are going to have to deal with in the IPP
space as well.


>Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 18:43:07 -0800 (PST)
>From: Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com>
>To: Richard Shockey <rshockey@ix.netcom.com>
>cc: ietf-fax@imc.org
>Subject: RE: Question on FaxConnect Results..
>On Thu, 4 Feb 1999 20:14:59 -0600, Richard Shockey wrote:
>> >> People want to send facsimile cover pages with their company logo's, baby
>> >> pictures and really long useless legal disclaimers. This type of cover
>> >> page generation is a implementation issue and I agree, should not
have any
>> >> place in the protocol itself.
>> >
>> >Except that because it is not specified in RFC2305 or eifax, a coverpage
>> >can never be expected by an ifax recipient.
>> >
>> >"What isn't in the standard is non-standard."
>> Fine but there is nothing in United States law that requires fax software
>> vendors to provide pretty little cover page generators either. Legally they
>> could just watermark the pages and they would be done.
>Yep. I think that's a great solution -- but, again, it is only needed
>on GSTN fax. Not on a TIFF-encoded image being sent over SMTP -- that
>is not GSTN fax -- the SMTP headers provide all the same legally-required
>identification strings, and more, than are available with GSTN fax.
>> >The whole coverpage issue is a rathole. The watermarking issue is a
>> >rathole as well, but a smaller rat hole.
>> Maybe a mouse hole .. certainly something to consider for a Implementers
>> guide and I hope as we reach the "end game" that work item gets high
>> >The goal of this WG was, and I believe continues to be, integration of
>> >email with fax -- while promoting and furthering the quality of faxes sent
>> >over email (as we have done with DSN/MDN support in eifax).
>> Well...you have said the magic word.. so long as we think of IFAX and EIFAX
>> as "fax" we have created a whole suite of end user expectations and those
>> expectations include the generation of cover pages and watermarking of the
>> files transmitted. This is not a protocol issue..its ..dare I say it a
>> marketing issue.
>> What we are doing, IMHO ,is abstracting the sending of "facsimile
>> documents" from the underlying transport layer or addressing scheme.
>> People want to send a "fax" from here to there..now they have a
>> choice.. do I send this "fax" via the GSTN to this phone number ..or
>> do I send this '"fax" to this e mail address or do I send this "fax"
>> to this IPP address..etc.
>>From what I know, these are the reasons for watermarks:
>* Count pages.
>A sender carefully counts the number of pages they are going to transmit,
>writes this on the coverpage (don't forget to count the coverpage!), puts
>that into their fax machine and hits Send.
>The receiver gets the pages and dutifully verifies the number of pages
>they have received is the same as the number the sender wrote on the
>Sometimes it's off by one -- is that because the sender didn't include
>the coverpage? Is it because the sender's fax machine stuck two pages
>together? The receiver has to decide, call the sender, have a page
>retransmitted, etc.
>I have NEVER encountered such a situation with email. The worst I have
>encountered is someone saying "See the attached document, which describes
>..." and they neglected to attach the document. No big deal - I reply,
>ask them to attach the document, they do that and resend the mail message
>to me. I've never received a partial mail message, never received a
>message with pages or parts of it out-of-order, etc.
>* Identify sender.
>The sending fax machine has no way of knowing if the sender is using a
>coverpage with this transmission. The fax machine could automatically
>generate a coverpage which is sent before the documents (my home fax
>machine can be configured to do this).
>However, not knowing if the sender is using a manually-generated
>coverpage, the fax machine wants the user to comply with the law
>(actually, the fax machine has to comply with the law, because
>I believe the requirement is that each fax machine identify itself
>using user-programmed settings).
>The easiest way to do this, and the least obtrusive, is a watermark.
>A coverpage is too intrusive, doesn't send a cute company logo, uses
>another sheet of paper on the recipient end, etc.
>With IPP and with SMTP, the sender is already identified with fields
>present in IPP and SMTP.
>* Datestamp
>The time the sender transmitted the fax.
>IPP and SMTP have mechanisms to get this same information.
>In summary, I see no need to include a watermark on the data that
>is being transmitted over IPP or SMTP.
>> >As such, I do not see it is reasonable for a user with a copy of Microsoft
>> >Word, some PS- or Word- or RTF- or ASCII-to-TIFF converter, and a copy of
>> >an off-the-shelf mailer (Eudora, Outlook, Netscape) to somehow watermark
>> >the TIFF pages or create a coverpage in addition to the "To:" field
>> >the user is already typing into her off-the-shelf mailer.
>> We'll see but it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the GSTN fax
>> software industry will do exactly what it has always done. Especially if
>> what is happening is a simple change of addressing and transport mechanism.
>Of course - each industry will do it the way they have always
>done it. The existing MUA companies will use a mail model, the existing
>GSTN fax software companies will use a fax model.
>The fax model of a coverpage in the document is redundant when the
>coverpage inforamtion (sender, receipient, date, subject) is already in
>the SMTP header. If the fax-over-smtp message is ever offramped, the
>coverpage and watermark information could be useful. But if the
>fax-over-smtp message is never offramped, the coverpage and watermark
>information is redundant and potentially damaging to the (first 1/2" of
>the document).
>And don't you suppose there would be confusion if someone sent an email
>with a coverpage that was incorrect? With email this is obvious when you
>forward a message -- message/rfc822 is used. And a computer can parse
>that. But a computer can't parse a coverpage to determine it is, in fact,
>a coverpage.
>> >I don't believe we can throw out all existing mailers and XXX-to-TIFF
>> >converters as "non ifax / non eifax compliant" because "compliant"
>> >offramps require some special, non-normal watermark on TIFF pages
>> >or non-normal MIME part which is the coverpage.
>> Realistically I agree..this looks like a "SHOULD" issue to me that will
>> almost certainly be driven by end user perceptions and marketing pressure.
>Sure -- and will surely depend on the company doing the development.
>> >I stick by my guns that while the message is traversing over email it
>> >should conform to email. When it is traversing over GSTN as a fax it
>> >should conform to fax.
>> Well ... as I have said before ..if it looks like a Duck... and you keep
>> calling it a Duck.. people are going to expect a Duck.
>The Duck is T.38.
>Fax-over-SMTP is not exactly the same as fax over GSTN. It never can
>be due to the "store" in store-and-forward. The new Deliver-By gives
>us a new hope that we can set an upper bound to the time allowed
>to "store" a message.
>-Dan Wing

Richard Shockey
Shockey Consulting LLC
8045 Big Bend Blvd. Suite 110
St. Louis, MO 63119
Voice 314.918.9020
Fax 314.918.9015
INTERNET Mail & IFAX : rshockey@ix.netcom.com