[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Mgetty-fax: Receiving multiple pages.



On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 10:54:03AM +1030, Paul Schulz wrote:

> Greetings,
> 
> I managed to set up the mgetty and mgetty-fax packages, at it is both
> sending and receiving faxes straight out of the install..
> 
> 1. Install packages 
> 
> 2. To receive faxes, enable mgetty in '/etc/inittab' on the serial
>    line that the faxmodem is attached to..
> 
> Sending faxes is with 'faxspool' with 'runfaxq' to send faxes on the
> queue.
> 
> Now.. I received a multiple pages fax, but can only see the first page..

Each fax page is received in /var/spool/fax/incoming as a raw g3 data
file beginning with either ffa or fna and ending with the page number.
The first thing I would do is check that your expected multiple page fax
is there as a number of g3 files.
 
>   1. mgetty-fax emails me the fax as a '.png' attachment

The /etc/mgetty/new_fax file installed from the mgetty-fax package is
set to convert g3 files to png format by default so that bit is fine.
However there should be one png for each g3.

A way of testing new_fax's conversion of g3 to png and whether it's
mailing them correctly is to execute as root

/etc/mgetty/new_fax 0 N n g3.01 g3.02 ...

where g3.01 etc are the full path names of the fax files. N is the
telephone number of the sender and n the number of pages.  You can put
anything for these (say 12345 for N and 3 for n) but they must be there.
Details of fax reception are in info mgetty.

>   2. I extract it using 'metamail -w' (need to edit it first though,
>      which is a problem.)
> 
> This only gives me the first page.

My MUA is mutt and attachments are simply saved, so I am not familiar
with this use of metamail.  Perhaps you are not extracting all the
pages.
 
> I would like to know what other people are using, and if they're happy
> with their system.  I just know my boss will be asking for a web based
> front end to this.

Brian.
-- 
email: brian@copernicus.demon.co.uk



Reply to: