Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #32296 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-19 19:11 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 152 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-19 19:11 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-19 22:16 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 03:22 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 03:11 -0500
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:31 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:05 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:18 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 12:36 -0500
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:28 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 19:24 -0500
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 13:58 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline John Carter <me@mymailsvr.org> - 2016-08-19 01:27 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:13 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:09 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:32 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 18:35 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2016-07-20 13:03 -0500
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 05:59 +0200
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 00:26 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:55 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 18:36 +0200
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 17:46 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 21:29 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2016-07-20 09:03 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-20 12:53 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 04:16 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 10:38 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 11:52 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:11 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:32 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:41 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-21 07:09 +0200
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Tim <timothybil@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-21 09:09 -0500
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 12:46 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:23 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:51 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 15:09 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 18:23 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 07:47 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:42 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-23 11:42 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:28 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 13:59 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-07-22 19:08 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 00:30 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-23 04:00 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-23 06:07 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 04:17 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 08:13 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 16:23 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 19:24 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 20:14 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:29 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-26 09:30 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:38 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-26 17:58 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:17 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-26 15:23 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:30 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-27 08:46 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline crankypuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 07:12 -0600
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 04:27 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 08:27 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-26 13:40 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 11:16 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 16:27 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 16:35 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 19:38 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 20:21 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "Percival P. Cassidy" <Nobody@NotMyISP.net> - 2016-07-24 22:07 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 22:11 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 13:35 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:16 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 23:48 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-24 04:22 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-26 15:27 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-27 02:38 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline crankpuss <undisclosedUserid@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 06:34 -0600
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 16:41 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 14:03 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 21:30 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:02 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:49 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> - 2016-07-20 18:40 +0200
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 15:53 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-20 05:59 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 10:38 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 10:52 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 11:53 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:18 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 12:43 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:13 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 11:08 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 14:15 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 12:24 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:42 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:58 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 14:03 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 15:27 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 16:07 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:31 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 16:45 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 20:01 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 00:15 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:08 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 04:04 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 02:17 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:49 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:51 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-07-22 03:44 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-07-25 17:53 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 07:55 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-20 12:53 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-23 23:38 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-24 11:16 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris in Makati <mail@nospam.com> - 2016-07-25 07:32 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-25 10:25 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Richard Owlett <rowlett@cloud85.net> - 2016-07-20 07:04 -0500
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 09:54 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 08:16 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 11:44 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> - 2016-07-20 11:08 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 09:09 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-20 17:29 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-20 12:44 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 07:45 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline David Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> - 2016-07-21 10:41 +0100
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline PAS <abc@doremi.net> - 2016-07-21 09:13 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 13:59 -0700
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:26 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> - 2016-07-20 18:29 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:28 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline "tb" <nospam@example.invalid> - 2016-07-20 13:41 +0000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:32 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Gordon Levi <gordon@address.invalid> - 2016-07-21 02:58 +1000
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-20 12:59 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-07-21 22:38 -0400
Re: Anybody here who still pays for a landline Micky <NONONObobbyburns1111@gmail.com> - 2016-07-21 22:34 -0400
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 14:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <200720161415102784%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32411 |
In article <pdfvob9jp0iktj68uk09jj5635i1e3cn2o@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> >Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. > >> > >> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done > >> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? > > > >fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot > >because they need a physically signed copy. > > > To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it > as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial > institutions. most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must be signed. either paper mail or fax.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 12:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <krjvob5dn7sdota8euc2vj40gmuhs79u74@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32413 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:15:10 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <pdfvob9jp0iktj68uk09jj5635i1e3cn2o@4ax.com>, Ken Blake ><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> >> >Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. >> >> >> >> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done >> >> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? >> > >> >fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot >> >because they need a physically signed copy. >> >> >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial >> institutions. > >most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must >be signed. either paper mail or fax. If you say so, but I've never run into that restriction. To me it sounds like something founded on ignorance. What's the difference between e-mailing a scanned attachment and faxing? They are essentially just two different ways of achieving the same thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <200720161547204588%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32431 |
In article <krjvob5dn7sdota8euc2vj40gmuhs79u74@4ax.com>, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> >> >Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. > >> >> > >> >> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done > >> >> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? > >> > > >> >fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot > >> >because they need a physically signed copy. > >> > >> > >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it > >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial > >> institutions. > > > >most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must > >be signed. either paper mail or fax. > > > If you say so, but I've never run into that restriction. To me it > sounds like something founded on ignorance. What's the difference > between e-mailing a scanned attachment and faxing? They are > essentially just two different ways of achieving the same thing. try explaining that to a major bank or law firm. ignorance or not, they set the rules and if you want to do business with them, you play by those rules. if they say no email, it's no email.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 16:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <t230pblmfc5ulg6h1efr0t8l3lubldb35r@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32436 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:47:20 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <krjvob5dn7sdota8euc2vj40gmuhs79u74@4ax.com>, Ken Blake ><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >> >> >> >Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. >> >> >> >> >> >> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done >> >> >> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? >> >> > >> >> >fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot >> >> >because they need a physically signed copy. >> >> >> >> >> >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it >> >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial >> >> institutions. >> > >> >most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must >> >be signed. either paper mail or fax. >> >> >> If you say so, but I've never run into that restriction. To me it >> sounds like something founded on ignorance. What's the difference >> between e-mailing a scanned attachment and faxing? They are >> essentially just two different ways of achieving the same thing. > >try explaining that to a major bank or law firm. > >ignorance or not, they set the rules and if you want to do business >with them, you play by those rules. if they say no email, it's no >email. Of course. But as I said, I've never run into that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 17:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dvn29iFp2otU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32460 |
Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 15:47:20 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > > >In article <krjvob5dn7sdota8euc2vj40gmuhs79u74@4ax.com>, Ken Blake > ><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > > > >> >> >> >Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done > >> >> >> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? > >> >> > > >> >> >fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot > >> >> >because they need a physically signed copy. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it > >> >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial > >> >> institutions. > >> > > >> >most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must > >> >be signed. either paper mail or fax. > >> > >> > >> If you say so, but I've never run into that restriction. To me it > >> sounds like something founded on ignorance. What's the difference > >> between e-mailing a scanned attachment and faxing? They are > >> essentially just two different ways of achieving the same thing. > > > >try explaining that to a major bank or law firm. > > > >ignorance or not, they set the rules and if you want to do business > >with them, you play by those rules. if they say no email, it's no > >email. > > > Of course. But as I said, I've never run into that. Me neither. If I can help it, I wouldn't do business with such backward 'institutions'. Is this absurdity perhaps a US-only/-mainly thing?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <250720161507102289%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32716 |
In article <dvn29iFp2otU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > >> If you say so, but I've never run into that restriction. To me it > > >> sounds like something founded on ignorance. What's the difference > > >> between e-mailing a scanned attachment and faxing? They are > > >> essentially just two different ways of achieving the same thing. > > > > > >try explaining that to a major bank or law firm. > > > > > >ignorance or not, they set the rules and if you want to do business > > >with them, you play by those rules. if they say no email, it's no > > >email. > > > > Of course. But as I said, I've never run into that. > > Me neither. If I can help it, I wouldn't do business with such > backward 'institutions'. often there is no choice. > Is this absurdity perhaps a US-only/-mainly thing? no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 14:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nmoovr$9ag$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32431 |
On 07/20/2016 12:24 PM, Ken Blake wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 14:15:10 -0400, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> > wrote: > >>In article <pdfvob9jp0iktj68uk09jj5635i1e3cn2o@4ax.com>, Ken Blake >><Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. >>> >> >>> >> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done >>> >> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? >>> > >>> >fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot >>> >because they need a physically signed copy. >>> >>> >>> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it >>> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial >>> institutions. >> >>most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must >>be signed. either paper mail or fax. > > > If you say so, but I've never run into that restriction. To me it > sounds like something founded on ignorance. What's the difference > between e-mailing a scanned attachment and faxing? They are > essentially just two different ways of achieving the same thing. It's a nuisance (turn on windows machine, turn on scanner) to scan, so I just take a photo and email the jpg. So far, so good. -- Cheers, Bev "What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PAS <abc@doremi.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 15:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmojba$mji$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32413 |
On 7/20/2016 2:15 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <pdfvob9jp0iktj68uk09jj5635i1e3cn2o@4ax.com>, Ken Blake > <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > >>>>> Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. >>>> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done >>>> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? >>> fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot >>> because they need a physically signed copy. >> >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial >> institutions. > most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must > be signed. either paper mail or fax. A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 15:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <200720161547214649%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32432 |
In article <nmojba$mji$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote: > >>>>> Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. > >>>> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done > >>>> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? > >>> fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot > >>> because they need a physically signed copy. > >> > >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it > >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial > >> institutions. > > most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must > > be signed. either paper mail or fax. > > A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. fax is equivalent to a mailed document. to a lot of companies, email is this new thing which would need to be printed and doesn't fit in with their 'procedure' of fax or paper mail (or in person, for that matter). not every company, but a lot of them. it may be stupid but that's how it is. > There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state > recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. i've had a number of recent interactions where only fax or paper mail was accepted. fortunately, it's actually easier to fax than scanning/emailing, as it's one step, not two. just load the hopper, punch in the phone number and let it do its thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | PAS <abc@doremi.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 16:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmollv$ugj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32437 |
On 7/20/2016 3:47 PM, nospam wrote: > In article <nmojba$mji$2@dont-email.me>, PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote: > >>>>>>> Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. >>>>>> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done >>>>>> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? >>>>> fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot >>>>> because they need a physically signed copy. >>>> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it >>>> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial >>>> institutions. >>> most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must >>> be signed. either paper mail or fax. >> A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. > fax is equivalent to a mailed document. > > to a lot of companies, email is this new thing which would need to be > printed and doesn't fit in with their 'procedure' of fax or paper mail > (or in person, for that matter). not every company, but a lot of them. > > it may be stupid but that's how it is. > >> There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state >> recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. > i've had a number of recent interactions where only fax or paper mail > was accepted. > > fortunately, it's actually easier to fax than scanning/emailing, as > it's one step, not two. just load the hopper, punch in the phone number > and let it do its thing. I agree. At the office, we're free to use the fax machine for personal use - it's the only real use it gets nowadays and sparse at that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 18:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmou4b$u0f$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32432 |
PAS wrote on 7/20/2016 3:27 PM: > > A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. > There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state > recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. > Medical offices require faxes. I think it's in HIPPA.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 16:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3730pb5886tdm4b3ktj99tto1up2fktcbk@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #32455 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:31:29 -0400, Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> wrote: >PAS wrote on 7/20/2016 3:27 PM: >> >> A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. >> There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state >> recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. >> > >Medical offices require faxes. I think it's in HIPPA. I don't remember ever sending a fax to a medical office, nor receiving one from them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-20 20:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <nmpduk$4ic$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32461 |
On 07/20/2016 04:45 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 18:31:29 -0400, Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>PAS wrote on 7/20/2016 3:27 PM:
>>>
>>> A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document.
>>> There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state
>>> recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents.
>>
>>Medical offices require faxes. I think it's in HIPPA.
>
> I don't remember ever sending a fax to a medical office, nor receiving
> one from them.
Supposedly they send records between offices. More likely the office
staff doesn't bother until you've yelled at them 4 times over a period
of months. The horseshit about communication among doctors is just that
-- horseshit. How many of you have found the "patient portal" -- when
you could even get it to work -- in any way useful?
--
Cheers, Bev
"If you're crazy, you better find a way to make money off it.
Otherwise they will lock you up" -- Hunter S. Thompson
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 00:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <210720160015112702%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32464 |
In article <nmpduk$4ic$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. > >>> There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state > >>> recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. > >> > >>Medical offices require faxes. I think it's in HIPPA. > > > > I don't remember ever sending a fax to a medical office, nor receiving > > one from them. > > Supposedly they send records between offices. More likely the office > staff doesn't bother until you've yelled at them 4 times over a period > of months. The horseshit about communication among doctors is just that > -- horseshit. you must have incompetent doctors. > How many of you have found the "patient portal" -- when > you could even get it to work -- in any way useful? very easy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 02:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmpoto$r9n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32464 |
The Real Bev wrote on 7/20/2016 11:01 PM: > > Supposedly they send records between offices. More likely the office > staff doesn't bother until you've yelled at them 4 times over a period > of months. The horseshit about communication among doctors is just that > -- horseshit. How many of you have found the "patient portal" -- when > you could even get it to work -- in any way useful? The portals of most of my doctors are useful. Exception is my cardiologist. His nurse monitors the portal. And my primary has given me his AOP address after I promised no more that 1 email per week and only two things in the email. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 04:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <og2v1xva68cu$.1fg0r2phlo3i1.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #32464 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 20:01:39 -0700, The Real Bev wrote: > Supposedly they send records between offices. That they do. One chiropractor has a fax number similar to mine, and I've had a good half-dozen faxes misdirected here intended for that chiropractor (setting up an appointment for a realignment for an accident victim, requesting a diagnostic report about a patient the doctor sent for treatment or diagnosis, etc.). All include a HIPAA-required statement that the information within the fax is not for the consumption of anyone other than the intended recipient. So I always phoned the sender to report that there's been a HIPAA violation in that I, not the intended recipient, received that fax. Always stirred up a great hullabaloo at the office that made the fax-number boo-boo; always had me *fax* the errant fax back to them and then "be sure to shred" my copy. (You can't make this sort of stuff up :-) .) And then they'd do it again! Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alek <alek.trishan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 02:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nmppec$t16$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #32455 |
Alek wrote on 7/20/2016 6:31 PM: > PAS wrote on 7/20/2016 3:27 PM: >> >> A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. >> There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state >> recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. >> > > Medical offices require faxes. I think it's in HIPPA. I was wrong. Email is OK. "The Privacy Rule allows covered health care providers to communicate electronically, such as through e-mail, with their patients, provided they apply reasonable safeguards when doing so. See 45 C.F.R. ยง 164.530(c). For example, certain precautions may need to be taken when using e-mail to avoid unintentional disclosures, such as checking the e-mail address for accuracy before sending, or sending an e-mail alert to the patient for address confirmation prior to sending the message. Further, while the Privacy Rule does not prohibit the use of unencrypted e-mail for treatment-related communications between health care providers and patients, other safeguards should be applied to reasonably protect privacy, such as limiting the amount or type of information disclosed through the unencrypted e-mail. In addition, covered entities will want to ensure that any transmission of electronic protected health information is in compliance with the HIPAA Security Rule requirements at 45 C.F.R. Part 164, Subpart C."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 17:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <dvn1pmFoummU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #32432 |
PAS <abc@doremi.net> wrote: > On 7/20/2016 2:15 PM, nospam wrote: > > In article <pdfvob9jp0iktj68uk09jj5635i1e3cn2o@4ax.com>, Ken Blake > > <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> Faxing is hit-or-miss with VOIP, mostly miss for me. > >>>> As far as I'm concerned, faxing is dead technology, and I haven't done > >>>> it for years. Just curious, what do you use it for? > >>> fax is far from dead. financial institutions and lawyers use it a lot > >>> because they need a physically signed copy. > >> > >> To me, it's dead. I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it > >> as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial > >> institutions. > > most of them will not accept email attachments for documents that must > > be signed. either paper mail or fax. > > A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. > There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state > recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. Same here. I recently sold some real estate and it was cumbersome to be present to sign the contract. A PDF of a scanned copy of the signed document was fine. They asked (not demanded) to sign with a blue pen and send a colour scan. Try *that* with a FAX! :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-25 15:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <250720161507092253%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| In reply to | #32714 |
In article <dvn1pmFoummU1@mid.individual.net>, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote: > > > > A fax provides a "copy" of a signature, just like an emailed document. > > There's no difference. I closed on some property in another state > > recently, I had the option to fax or email copies of the signed documents. > > Same here. I recently sold some real estate and it was cumbersome to > be present to sign the contract. A PDF of a scanned copy of the signed > document was fine. They asked (not demanded) to sign with a blue pen and > send a colour scan. Try *that* with a FAX! :-) there are colour fax machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 03:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <a3sfe2wr82rb$.1awg27p1g17ej$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #32411 |
On Wed, 20 Jul 2016 11:08:14 -0700, Ken Blake wrote: > I can sign a physical document, scan it and send it > as an e-mail attachment. I've done this numerous times with financial > institutions. I think there must be regional differences. In the USA, medical services must comply with HIPAA regulations, which hold that email communications are far more easily intercepted and viewed by unauthorised interlopers than are faxed communications sent on the PSTN. In Steve Hayes's telkomsa land, there's no US HIPAA to make such demands. Where you reside, perhaps, likewise. HTH. Cheers, -- tlvp -- Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web