Faxing



  • We have a FreePBX server here. What's the best way to handle faxing?


  • Service Provider

    Depends on the use case. Faxing through the FreePBX is an option. But most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.

    Such as?


  • Service Provider

    @aaronstuder said in Faxing:

    We have a FreePBX server here. What's the best way to handle faxing?

    To burn it with fire.


  • Service Provider

    @aaronstuder said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.

    Such as?

    Google.

    http://www.myfax.com/overview.aspx



  • Hosted fax all the way. Or keep a live POTS line just for faxing.



  • @coliver said in Faxing:

    Hosted fax all the way. Or keep a live POTS line just for faxing.

    Honestly - you would have much less stress and other issues if you use a POTS line.

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    Hosted fax all the way. Or keep a live POTS line just for faxing.

    This is pretty much what most people do. Sucks either way.


  • Service Provider

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.



  • @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I am sure some people try to tell you that, but I have heard of any state that requires POTS in every business. Such a law would never pass a judicial review.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.


  • Service Provider

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    Hosted fax all the way. Or keep a live POTS line just for faxing.

    Honestly - you would have much less stress and other issues if you use a POTS line.

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    Not if the PBX goes down. You'd have nothing that you didn't have before in that case.


  • Service Provider

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.


  • Service Provider

    Now, what most states require is that a business provide valid 911 service.

    This is simple. You pay your SIP provider their E911 fee, verify/validate your address. and you are done.

    If you have more than one location coming into your PBX< you may have to buy more DID to have a route with a confirmed address for each location.



  • @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    There has never been a regulation anywhere that I have worked with VoIP.

    That is a complete myth. See my previous post.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Also, that is flawed logic. how do you communicate when the POTS line is down?



  • @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    There has never been a regulation anywhere that I have worked with VoIP.

    That is a complete myth. See my previous post.

    That's fine, appreciate the info.



  • @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Also, that is flawed logic. how do you communicate when the POTS line is down?

    Where we live the POTS line is much more reliable then the internet line. I get where you're coming from though. I can see where my thinking is flawed I appreciate you pointing it out.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Ah yes, means to communicate, definitely. But that it needs to be POTS is what I've never seen.


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Also, that is flawed logic. how do you communicate when the POTS line is down?

    Which in NY is relatively often.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Also, that is flawed logic. how do you communicate when the POTS line is down?

    Where we live the POTS line is much more reliable then the internet line. I get where you're coming from though. I can see where my thinking is flawed I appreciate you pointing it out.

    I've had POTS outages in NY going into the months range. Rare, but it happens.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Ah yes, means to communicate, definitely. But that it needs to be POTS is what I've never seen.

    Right, I don't think I've ever seen the POTS requirement, that's my bad for saying it. Just that it was the only thing that made sense in our area. Cell service is basically non-existent and the internet is unreliable.


  • Service Provider

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Ah yes, means to communicate, definitely. But that it needs to be POTS is what I've never seen.

    Right, I don't think I've ever seen the POTS requirement, that's my bad for saying it. Just that it was the only thing that made sense in our area. Cell service is basically non-existent and the internet is unreliable.

    After looking at that PDF, I have a feeling I know where you live.
    They had pretty state graphs of coverage for various services.



  • @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    @coliver said in Faxing:

    @JaredBusch said in Faxing:

    @gjacobse said in Faxing:

    It would also serve as a 'fail over' should your ISP or PBX go down.

    This is completely backwards thinking. Why in the hell would you want to fail back to POTS from a pure SIP system? The maintenance and setup alone make it not worth it compared to simply having your provider route calls to a failover number. For your outbound calling, Critical needs can be handled with a cell phone until backup methods of connectivity restore calling via SIP.

    In NYS, from the 911 laws/rules that I read, the business is required to provide a POTS line in the event of emergencies.

    I've heard of this as a common myth, never heard anyone substantiate it. I believe that I've seen it disproved before, but cannot think of where.

    The number of companies that don't or can't have a POTS line is pretty big. This isn't a viable law, IMHO.

    This is a recent study produced by NYS and clearly indicates how much POTS connectivity is dropping.

    www.dps.ny.gov/TelStudy

    If it were possible to actually require by law people to have traditional POTS, then this would not be happening.

    That's good to know. From my understanding it was basically a requirement that you needed a means of communicating with the outside world in the event of an emergency. The under-tone was that it was expected that businesses would have POTS to facilitate that. It may have been an old regulation that has been unenforced or was never on the books. Thanks for the info.

    Ah yes, means to communicate, definitely. But that it needs to be POTS is what I've never seen.

    Right, I don't think I've ever seen the POTS requirement, that's my bad for saying it. Just that it was the only thing that made sense in our area. Cell service is basically non-existent and the internet is unreliable.

    After looking at that PDF, I have a feeling I know where you live.
    They had pretty state graphs of coverage for various services.

    Just look for the area with no cell service, mediocre internet coverage, and expensive POTS coverage.



  • @scottalanmiller said in Faxing:

    Depends on the use case. Faxing through the FreePBX is an option. But most places that use faxing heavily still go with a hosted service just for that.

    They do? I guess they must be low volume users. I looked at a hosted solution, they wanted $1300/mth for 16K pages a month.

    My inhouse solution costs me around $100/month... Almost nothing makes then worth 13x the cost.



  • Our business refuses to get a fax, we'll never have a fax, and when people want to fax us things, I explain to them what email is. If they need something faxed from me, they simply don't receive it. Usually when you refuse people do open up to other things, more often than not they will print a PDF to fax, or upload it to an efax solution which in turn goes to another efax solution, so it's really just slow, unreliable email which does not produce digital copies.

    I do realise many businesses cannot function like this, and I feel bad for them.

    On a sadder note, I've been involved in several arguments on Spiceworks about the security of fax, some people still think it's more secure to send PHI over fax when you don't know who will get it or how it will be disposed of on the other end, compared to an encrypted email -- SAM was even involved in one. The logic is "well anyone could read the email." Ugh...



  • @tonyshowoff said in Faxing:

    On a sadder note, I've been involved in several arguments on Spiceworks about the security of fax, some people still think it's more secure to send PHI over fax when you don't know who will get it or how it will be disposed of on the other end, compared to an encrypted email -- SAM was even involved in one. The logic is "well anyone could read the email." Ugh...

    Scott has been saying for years that regular email is more secure than faxing - that I'll never agree with.

    There are two main areas that I know use faxing a ton still, Lawyers and Doctors. Both of them require *secure" communications when using something other than fax. Secure email is a huge pain in the ass, there is no single uniform standard. Faxing is an easy to implement solution that is standard everywhere - like SMS messaging. It's just there, it works, delivering it to an office not a person has always been considered good enough.

    I so want to see a better solution put in place, and Direct Messaging is a promising step/solution to this problem which is only possible because the EHR vendors are looking for a better way of moving this data around. DM works by having EHRs be part of a Health Information Exchange network (HIE). These HIE's have email servers with certificates setup for each entity within the system that's been given one, the HIE's, though the OCR trust each other to be valid allowable representatives of those entities. So if your doc needs to send Continuity of Care documentation to another doc, the EHR looks to the HIE, who looks to their know HIEs to see if the other doc participates, if so, their public key is retrieved, the message encrypted and sent.

    Of course this system isn't free. It also suffers from the problem where each doctor will have a different DM address for each system they participate in, depending upon who owns the chart where the doc is seeing that patient. This is a kin to you having multiple phone numbers, a home phone, a cell phone, a business phone, etc.


  • Banned

    @Dashrender What makes you think a fax is secure? there is no encryption, there's no verification of who it's going to or who got it. A plain text email is more secure than a Fax. just because Doctors and lawyers like doing things wrong doesn't mean everyone else should.