Windows Fax & Scan.

On 14/09/2015 03:16, Paul in Houston TX wrote:

One does not put a digital signature on a major project and email it off.

So what do they do? Faxing it? Does this make any sense to you?

On 14/09/2015 14:00, NY wrote:
"Good Guy" wrote in message
...
People aren't using fax machines these days anymore. Most business
is conducted by email and web interface.

Sadly some financial organisations will not accept a signature on a
JPEG scan of a document but will accept what is substantially the same
thing, a fax of a signed document.


Precisely. If they can accept the document faxed to them but not accept
the same document (emailed to them) printed by themselves on their same
printer is simply barmy and one should confront them and embarrass
them. Thankfully, we don't have this problem in UK although with some
legal documents, they need inked signature in which case courier service
is needed now that snail mail is almost not reliable.


It is a pain in the a**e when I want to withdraw money from a savings
account because I either have to post a letter or else fax a copy of
that letter. My new PCs (desktop and laptop) do not have a fax/dialup
modem, so it's a pain. With my old laptop (which suffered a CPU
failure) I could scan the document and send it off by fax using
Windows Fax and Scan.


You don't have a bank card? We have ATM machines all over the place and
money can be withdrawn 24/7. Are you in some part of Taliban city?

I asked them whether I could scan the signed letter and send it as a
JPEG attached to an email, but they said that was not acceptable and
never would be.

Why JPEG? what is wrong with PDF. subtle difference but difference it
is. So you are telling us that you can fax a jpeg image to them and
they will accept it but a PDF letter sent by email is not acceptable to
them because it is too much trouble for them to print it out. Is this so?

On 14/09/2015 15:17, Mike Easter wrote:
Good Guy wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Peter Jason wrote:
I found it in "Options"

Wait 'til the junx bombs hit.

Junx = fax spam

It also includes 'mailicious' junx bombs like black pages.

Please stop misinforming people and frightening them here. People
aren't using fax machines these days anymore. Most business is
conducted by email and web interface.

The OP says:






The OP is using the fax machine but spammers aren't. Do you think they
(the spammers) are so stupid to use the most expensive way to spam? You
have been using email and these newsgroups to spam people so what made
you say that they are using fax machines to spam. Are you cleverer than
them?

On 14/09/2015 06:10, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/13/15 8:51 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Good Guy wrote:
On 14/09/2015 02:58, Mike Easter wrote:
Peter Jason wrote:
I found it in "Options"

Wait 'til the junx bombs hit.

Junx = fax spam

It also includes 'mailicious' junx bombs like black pages.


Please stop misinforming people and frightening them here. People
aren't using fax
machines these days anymore. Most business is conducted by email
and web interface.

I forgot to add that most medical and insurance require a faxed
signature.

They are not the only ones, either.

Another advantage of fax machines? Probably no one is trying to hack
into a fax transmission.



This is the most stupid excuse I have heard of not using the Internet to
efficiently conduct the business in the 21st century. You are giving us
your age aren't you?

Print this out on your "All-in-one-printer" and see if it is any
different from the one which I can fax it to you all he

http://kpmgmail.co.uk/collect/click.aspx?u=jRYOrR8N39Ty4U420j5eGaM8OKc0FdlZYM9tE xKqGGTh0NGSqq6OFklTp3Jtv/cKWXqTEPl+QYioqsFtIo/rHDIIEjtyEZDgun58yEJBXEXC+VaNMcpvb9V0TaF5Y2ltyulZ2 5ppZtf5GFQUNKO0tT+b2WtNhKGS&rh=ff0021c6e118ca337fc 61bbeeb4eb7f2f768e792

Good Guy wrote:
Apart from this, do you know any spammer who is as stupid as most
posters here are willing to use the most expensive way of spamming
people? Email is the cheapest method while fax is the most expensive
method.

You haven't heard of fax blasters or fax broadcasters?



--
Mike Easter

Good Guy wrote:
Did you ask them what is the difference between they printing your pdf
document sent by email on their all-in-one-printer or you printing that
same pdf document (i.e. faxing it) on their same all-in-one-printer? Ask
them and let us know what answer you get from them.

Some offices have their own limited equipment and policies for the
people who answer the 'phone.

The 'receptionist' or other who is capable of putting hir hands on the
actual paper physical document in question is limited to the following
resources. Her 'phone, a copy machine which can fax AND s/he is NOT
provided: stamps, envelopes, computer or digital scanner.

If you want hir to send you a copy of the doc she is holding in her
hand, you are limited to a fax copy. If you don't have a fax machine of
your own or some service to handle faxes for you, you will have to
obtain a copy of the document 'some other way' as yet unknown to the
person you are talking to on the 'phone.


--
Mike Easter

Good Guy wrote:
The OP is using the fax machine but spammers aren't. Do you think they
(the spammers) are so stupid to use the most expensive way to spam? You
have been using email and these newsgroups to spam people so what made
you say that they are using fax machines to spam. Are you cleverer than
them?

Altho' you may not be familiar with the conditions yesteryear, but there
was a time that significant junx was coexistent with spam.

There was an entire 'cottage industry' that grew up around suing junxers
because there were enforceable laws about junx that didn't exist for spam.

http://www.junkfax.org/fax/action/how_to_sue.html How to get $2,500 or
more per junk fax you receive

--
Mike Easter

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 07:28:36 -0700, Mike Easter
wrote:

Good Guy wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:
Peter Jason wrote:
I found it in "Options"

Wait 'til the junx bombs hit.

Junx = fax spam

It also includes 'mailicious' junx bombs like black pages.

Please stop misinforming people and frightening them here. People
aren't using fax machines these days anymore. Most business is
conducted by email and web interface.

The OP says:

We use Windows fax & scan to receive faxes.

The faxes arrive and then just sit in the "Inbox".

Is there any way to have them printed out immediately via a network
printer as soon as they arrive?

So, what most people do is not what Peter is doing. By printing the
faxes directly instead of holding them digitally in the computer, he
takes away a buffer from the problems of the 'bad old days' of junxing
and mailicious junx.

However, the fact that fax activity has diminished seems to have
diminished junx as well, so the old threat may be less significant.

Is there any way to flag the presence of a new fax without printing
it? I mean like a huge blinking red sign saying "new fax" on the
desktop? I missed an important one the other day.

Peter Jason wrote:
Is there any way to flag the presence of a new fax without printing
it? I mean like a huge blinking red sign saying "new fax" on the
desktop? I missed an important one the other day.

I know of 'play sound when new messages arrive', but I don't know what
about your missing that event.

You can also have it 'save a copy to' and put it on the desktop.

--
Mike Easter

Peter Jason wrote:


Is there any way to flag the presence of a new fax without printing
it? I mean like a huge blinking red sign saying "new fax" on the
desktop? I missed an important one the other day.

This definitely sounds like a job for third party software.

They assign them Event IDs here, implying Event Viewer has
a log. Maybe that "Fax Service Manager" has a setting ?

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/...(v=ws.10).aspx

Paul

"Good Guy" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/2015 14:00, NY wrote:

Sadly some financial organisations will not accept a signature on a JPEG
scan of a document but will accept what is substantially the same thing,
a fax of a signed document.


Precisely. If they can accept the document faxed to them but not accept
the same document (emailed to them) printed by themselves on their same
printer is simply barmy and one should confront them and embarrass them.
Thankfully, we don't have this problem in UK although with some legal
documents, they need inked signature in which case courier service is
needed now that snail mail is almost not reliable.

I agree it's barmy and it annoys the hell out of me. But when I did complain
I was told that "those are the rules" and that it's "for security reasons"
which is one of those terribly vague explanations that is so vague that you
can't argue against it.



It is a pain in the a**e when I want to withdraw money from a savings
account because I either have to post a letter or else fax a copy of
that letter. My new PCs (desktop and laptop) do not have a fax/dialup
modem, so it's a pain. With my old laptop (which suffered a CPU failure)
I could scan the document and send it off by fax using Windows Fax and
Scan.


You don't have a bank card? We have ATM machines all over the place and
money can be withdrawn 24/7. Are you in some part of Taliban city?

This is a unit trust savings account with a major UK financial organisation,
and I'm in the UK. The account offers considerably better growth than a bank
or building society. It's worth the extra hassle for the rare occasions that
I withdraw money, compared with the greater convenience but lower growth of
a bank.


I asked them whether I could scan the signed letter and send it as a
JPEG attached to an email, but they said that was not acceptable and
never would be.


Why JPEG? what is wrong with PDF. subtle difference but difference it is.
So you are telling us that you can fax a jpeg image to them and they will
accept it but a PDF letter sent by email is not acceptable to them because
it is too much trouble for them to print it out. Is this so?

It's not so much the format (JPG/PDF). It's the means of transmission -
email is seen as insecure whereas fax is seen as secure. I suppose the
point-to-point connection of fax does make it a little more secure than
email which is sent via a public mechanism (the internet) on servers that
have messages to/from loads of other people. I could encrypt the email which
would make it much harder to hack, but I doubt whether the financial company
would know how to decrypt it.

"NY" wrote in message
o.uk...
"Good Guy" wrote in message
...
On 14/09/2015 14:00, NY wrote:

Sadly some financial organisations will not accept a signature on a
JPEG
scan of a document but will accept what is substantially the same
thing,
a fax of a signed document.

I asked them whether I could scan the signed letter and send it as a
JPEG attached to an email, but they said that was not acceptable and
never would be.


Why JPEG? what is wrong with PDF. subtle difference but difference it
is.
So you are telling us that you can fax a jpeg image to them and they will
accept it but a PDF letter sent by email is not acceptable to them
because
it is too much trouble for them to print it out. Is this so?

What they probably don't realise is that when I used to send them a fax, it
was not from a printed letter with a handwritten signature, fed into a fax
machine, and scanned and sent by fax.

Instead I scanned my signature to a JPG which I embedded as a "picture" in
Word, at a suitable place in the Word document of the letter, and then I
"printed" it to a the virtual printer which Windows Fax and Scan creates.
That's probably against the rules because it involves the use of (heaven
forbid) a computer (shock horror) rather than a fax machine. But it's
received in a format that they accept, so that's all that matters.

On 9/14/15 1:56 PM, Good Guy wrote:
On 14/09/2015 11:07, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el m, Peter Jason
escribió:

I have tried to convert customers, but some have Luddite staff who are
happy with the old clunker fax machines.
As others have said, they are still useful for certain applications.

"Good" Guy is being an idiot, as usual. Just because he no longer uses
a fax means no-one else should either.


The people who are idiots are the ones still using Fax system IMHO and
this includes you for not thinking hard enough why fax is not efficient
way to communicate in the 21st century.

And you are ignoring various legal requirements required by different
industries.

Guess you'd better not buy a new house. You might be upset having to
use a blue pen when most of the world now uses black pens.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 9/14/15 2:20 PM, Good Guy wrote:
On 14/09/2015 06:10, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/13/15 8:51 PM, Paul in Houston TX wrote:
Good Guy wrote:
On 14/09/2015 02:58, Mike Easter wrote:
Peter Jason wrote:
I found it in "Options"

Wait 'til the junx bombs hit.

Junx = fax spam

It also includes 'mailicious' junx bombs like black pages.


Please stop misinforming people and frightening them here. People
aren't using fax
machines these days anymore. Most business is conducted by email
and web interface.

I forgot to add that most medical and insurance require a faxed
signature.

They are not the only ones, either.

Another advantage of fax machines? Probably no one is trying to hack
into a fax transmission.



This is the most stupid excuse I have heard of not using the Internet to
efficiently conduct the business in the 21st century. You are giving us
your age aren't you?

No, your I.Q.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"