Hey Bret, Its not a problem, I just thought I wasn't clear in the way I had explained it previously. I have no idea what 34 is supposed to be, I don't believe its defined anywhere.
Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 15:01 -0500, Igor Hernandez wrote: >> Hey Bret, >> >> Thanks for the response. What we actually need is nothing as complicated >> as that. For whatever reason the client needs to see code 34 regardless >> of the cause of call failure. So basically if the call doesn't connect >> I'm supposed to send back code 34. >> >> Does that make sense? >> > > Yes, and based on what was originally said the hangup(34) should work > (is 34 even defined by anything or is that just some arbitrary number > they picked?) I was curious if there was ability to do more than > busy/noanswer detection and thought it might apply to your situation, > certainly it will to some. Personally I dont care much either way, its > just that I discovered some unanswered questions in the thread and felt > like getting em answered and used you as an excuse :P > > Its a personal quirk, if I know part of something and know that there is > more I want to know that little bit more even if I have no plans of ever > using it. _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
