home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!spool.mu.edu!enterpoop.mit.edu!eru.mt.luth.se!kth.se!regebro
- From: regebro@stacken.kth.se (Lennart Regebro)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.fax
- Subject: Re: CAS vs. CLASS 1
- Message-ID: <1993Jan3.213140.7744@kth.se>
- Date: 3 Jan 93 21:31:40 GMT
- References: <gksmith.20.0@mcl.cc.utexas.edu>
- Sender: usenet@kth.se (Usenet)
- Organization: Stacken Computer Club, Stockholm, Sweden
- Lines: 27
- Nntp-Posting-Host: alex.stacken.kth.se
-
- In article <gksmith.20.0@mcl.cc.utexas.edu> gksmith@mcl.cc.utexas.edu (Glenn Smith) writes:
- >Does anyone have a comparision between the CAS and CLASS 1 specifications?
- >I need to know what the differences between the two "standards" are. Also,
- >any information concerning CLASS 2 fax modems would be appreciated.
-
- Once again I have a fine opportunity to make a fool out of myself, but I'm
- usually not that wrong, so I'll give it a try anyway.
-
- From what I understand the Class 1 specification is very different from the
- CAS. In Class 1, the application sending must tell the modem what to send,
- byte by byte. In CAS the application creates PCX files and then tells the
- CAS interface to send the PCX file. The CAS interface will then do what's
- necessary to send the file. This makes the use of intelligent faxmodems
- possible and is vastly more preferreable. However, the CAS interface is
- not very good. It's biggest drawback is the lack of decent error handling.
- The only status you get is if the fax was sent or not. No hint on why the
- fax wasn't sent.
-
- I have been told that Class 2 is a step in the CAS direction, but I have no
- idea how far.
-
-
- --
- ------
- Lennart Regebro regebro@stacken.kth.se
- Stacken Computer Club +46-8 649 18 51
- Don`t call before calculating my local time, please. This is GMT +1.
-