Subject: At Last We Found You

From: Ken Camarro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 12:25:07 -0500

Dear Mr. Basckin:

Thank you for your letter to ietf-faxlist.

I am one of ValueCom's victims.  Gareth regularly sent me one to four faxes
a day that were up to 10 pages in length for over three months.  This
consumed a heap of paper and toner.  He also sent them to Brooktrout
Network Group which was going to change its fax number.  I discovered my
other partner one day when I received a pack of test documents which had my
number and Brooktrout's handwritten fax numbers on one of them.

I finally solved the problem by systematically sending faxes back to the
fax machine administrators at each sending number and did receive a letter
from Mr. David Dormer At Unicor who helped me to crack the problem.  I must
admit I was very surprised to see new host recipients from the ietf-fax
list who were posting their complaints just after my complaint was
recognized. "Not too swift" as we say.

Needless to say, this remains as a kind of mindless activity by your
technician and the supervisor who certainly must have had some inkling that
it would be a nuisance.

I think your apology letter is acceptable and I hope it is received by
others as well.  And let your people know that their activities were
outside the bounds.

Best regards,  
Ken Camarro

Camarro Research

Marketing, Product Development, 
Market Research, and User Application Consulting Since 1984
580 Commerce DR
Fairfield, CT 06432-5513
Tel 203-336-4566
Fax 203-331-0470
email [email-masked]

Residence: 

345 Carroll Road
Fairfield, CT 06430
Tel 203-254-1755

---

From: don mactaggart <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1998 14:41:45 -0500 (EST)

Just to add a little forward and backward history to this saga: CyberFax'
first list of volunteered victims was compiled in 1997 and comprised
individuals participating in IPfax working groups, primarily TSG8, who
appreciated the value of getting T.38 right. All on the list were e-mailed
or (short) faxed in advance, and 3 individuals asked to be deselected, and
were. The ensuing test program

a) was completed March 3/98,
b) used ITU BW01 test page with a high bit:paper ratio, reducing paper use
   (a small subset got the 10-page Slerexe+ series), max once a month.

I thanked the members of TSG8 at the June'98 Geneva meeting, and offered
beer in return for paper used, but no one deemed it worth a beer.

I originated some tests in February'98 from Ian Basckin's office, and I
presume that is where he got the list and the Slerexe series, but didn't
constrain the inconvenience factor per para. 1, with results per the
current thread. 

Since then our test program has targeted exotic, hard to reach countries
since our success rate to valid numbers in upmarket countries was stuck
at 100%. That program was completed in Sept'98 and reported to TSG/Q4 in
Ashbourne in November. No beers changed hands as a direct result; targets
were not in country codes 1, 44, 81, 61, 49, 33 (e.g.)...for the most part
(so I'm innocent!).

I would like to restart a very limited set of tests with our T.38 compliant
system in '99, and any suggestions for doing it more gently will be
appreciated and entertained --- including interop tests at the T.38 level.

Finally, I cannot resist noting that (too many) faxes does attract attention
and perhaps the fact that slimy fax paper is less convenient to trash than
photons on phospor has merit in situations other than this one. I considered
test copy as a cartoon with entertainment value, but if you have some that
are amusing yet inoffensive to all countries - I didn't. So BW01 it wa.

Best Regards, Don Mactaggart                               www.cyberfax.ca
              CyberFax Inc.