On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 09:03:29AM +1000, Gonzalo Servat wrote: > On 5/29/05, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, May 28, 2005 at 06:34:23AM +1000, Gonzalo Servat wrote: > [snip] > > > If Asterisk allowed me to configure up to 10 ringing patterns, I could > > > probably cover most of the ringing patterns being detected, but > > > unfortunately there is a limit of 3 which means 50% (or more) of the > > > calls are coming in under a distinctive ring pattern not configured in > > > Asterisk, and hence going to the default context. > > > > Is there any deeper reason for that limitation, other than "it didn't > > bother anybody enough"? > > I wonder that myself, but I have no idea why the limit is imposed. Any > Asterisk developers willing to answer that for us? > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions/ideas/etc on how to resolve this issue? > > > > Could you post here some ring patterns you get? A distinctive ring can > > identify a pattern that is "similar" enough to an existing pattern. > > You're right, some that were not defined were close enough to the > ringing pattern and did match, but even with 3 popular distinctive > rings defined there were still calls that were coming up with a new > distinctive ring pattern and not getting matched by the defined dring > patterns. > > Some of the ones I frequently saw were: > > 334,147,0 > 383,195,0 > 334,0,0 > 336,348,0 > 334,146,0
334,147,0 and 334,146,0 are practically the same. As for 334,0,0: Maybethe second patter was missed? I have the same problem here. -- Tzafrir Cohen | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | VIM is http://tzafrir.org.il | | a Mutt's [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | best ICQ# 16849755 | | friend _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
