> I am using ODBC realtime storage with Asterisk. Currently, with no password
> set, a user can dial the voicemail number to retrieve their own voicemail,
> without needing to enter a password (without hearing the password prompt).
> However, there is still a 'mailbox' prompt played, and if a
>
> From their own phone or from any phone?
>
>From their own phone. If calling from any other phone, the only difference
- for entering the same mailbox - is to enter the mailbox number
immediately after the 'mailbox' prompt,
> It's not for accessing another person's mailbox. It's for
Dears,
I have a small callcenter with asterisk13.10-rc3.
My agents have dynamic association with an identify, example:
# queue show
helpdesk has 0 calls (max 5) in 'rrmemory' strategy (0s holdtime, 0s
talktime), W:0, C:0, A:0, SL:0.0% within 0s
Members:
9428 (Local/1939@1939_in/n from
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 09:08:36 +0100
Nabeel wrote:
> I am using ODBC realtime storage with Asterisk. Currently, with no
> password set, a user can dial the voicemail number to retrieve their
>From their own phone or from any phone?
> I am yet to test this behaviour in
Saint Michael wrote:
On an outbound call, PJSIP, I execute a macro and try to detect the end
of ringback, inside the macro. So far waitforring() does nothing, stays
stuck. Any combination of waitffornoise and waitforsilence, or
backgrounddetect fail to find the moment when the ringabck stops. I
On an outbound call, PJSIP, I execute a macro and try to detect the end of
ringback, inside the macro. So far waitforring() does nothing, stays stuck.
Any combination of waitffornoise and waitforsilence, or backgrounddetect
fail to find the moment when the ringabck stops. I can detect when it
On 01/08/16 09:08, Nabeel wrote:
I am yet to test this behaviour in Asterisk during the
Unavailable/Busy message. However, if this is the case, then this
seems to be an illogical security hole in Asterisk's design. Why does
Asterisk allow accessing another person's mailbox by pressing the '*'
>
> But did you understand every line and what it was doing?
>
They are quite self-explanatory, so of-course I understand them.
> Too much information missing. Perhaps instead of asking how to
> implement the solution that you have already decided on you should
> instead tell us what problem