Hi, Could you explain for the benefit of the list what you have changed in the snom image that will benefit this ticket? I am already receiving your current beta images, through our distributor, up-to about 2008-13-19, and am not aware of any changes that affect BLF behaviour or short-dials...
NOTE to list: User beware - The last few versions of beta firmware I tested break re-invites. Of course this may be fixed by now. Regards, Steve On 26/03/2008, Christian Stredicke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Anyone who is willing to try out an image please send me a private email. > > CS > > ________________________________ > Von: Christian Stredicke > Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. März 2008 11:56 > An: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion' > Betreff: AW: [asterisk-users] BLF and Snom phones > > > > I agree with Russel that vendor specific things should be the exception. The > RFC was not written for features like call pickup, and the way snom > interpreted it years ago (even my snom 100 already supported dialog state!) > was just because we wanted to avoid additional provisioning. If there should > be something in the snom phones that needs to be done, then we can take a > look into this. Looking at the ticket, it seems to be simple. > > CS [from snom] > > ________________________________ > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag > von Rob Hillis > Gesendet: Sonntag, 23. März 2008 11:01 > An: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion > Betreff: Re: [asterisk-users] BLF and Snom phones > > > Bill Hackensack wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2008 at 7:17 AM, Philipp Kempgen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > http://bugs.digium.com/view.php?id=5014 > > > > > > The response on that issue from Russell is the kind of response that really > ticks me off. No, no, no, we don't want any real features that users want, > we want basic, boring features. Asterisk is a call center system, not for > regular, everyday business users. > > It could be so much more, though... > > Works great as an advanced IVR as a front end to a real phone system, > though. > While his basic point makes sense (we want to get away from channel specific > implementation stuff) what he seems to be ignoring is that this patch > actually provides no benefit at all to non-SIP channels, since the Snom > phones don't support any technology other than SIP. > > I still think Asterisk is more than just a front-end to a "rea"l phone > system. What you can achieve with Asterisk is vastly beyond anything you > can achieve with most other PABX systems without spending an utter fortune. > _______________________________________________ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users