On 07/06/2011 05:52 PM, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
On 07/06/2011 04:44 PM, Alec Davis wrote:
IMHO, blind tranfer definition is to NOT connect A and B back
That is correct, and is why it's called a 'blind' transfer;
the transferring party does not know or care what happens to
the call after effecting the transfer.
That's not what users migrating from some legacy PBXs expect, our old
Fujitsu essence will call back the transferrer if the call isn't
answered.
The good old 'hook flash', dial the extension, then hangup.
Well, that would have to be handled in the dialplan somehow, because
Asterisk alone can't decide when a call is 'not answered'. However,
writing such a dialplan would indeed be non-trivial :-)
Not to mention the expansive myriad of things that can "answer" the call
these days, like sundry voicemail systems, that do not constitute an
"answer" in the sense desired by the transferring party.
On the other hand, if you make the ring timeout too short, that breaks
functionality such as call forwarding to a cell phone on the recipient side.
It seems to me that keeping blind transfer truly "blind" is the only
viable strategy in the contemporary device, service and feature milieu.
--
Alex Balashov - Principal
Evariste Systems LLC
260 Peachtree Street NW
Suite 2200
Atlanta, GA 30303
Tel: +1-678-954-0670
Fax: +1-404-961-1892
Web: http://www.evaristesys.com/
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
http://www.asterisk.org/hello
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
