Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
On Fri, June 16, 2017 12:28, Tim S wrote: Whether it is intentional or not these messages railing against the list operators has a decided tone of condescension which is not warranted. The fact of the matter is that DMARC is broken by design and the unpleasant effects that adoption of it has on mailing-list traffic were well hashed out on the ITEF mailing lists before it was adopted anyway. What was predicted there has come to pass. DMARC conflicts with the existing SMTP RFCs in several ways, none of which I will elaborate here but all of which may be discovered by perusing the relevant threads on the ITEF mailing lists. Some mailing list management software, notably Mailman, since has been modified to 'work around' the problems with DMARC if so configured by the list owners. But only at the cost of violating the SMTP RFCs themselves. Do not take my word for it. Raise these issues on the Postfix mailing list and discover what response you get from Viktor and Wietse. The driving force behind DMARC was YAHOO's shoddy security of their own users' accounts. With Hotmail and similar ilk close behind. It is a completely inappropriate, and in my opinion ill-thought-out, technical solution to what is essentially an internal security problem at some email providers, albeit very large ones. In general it is an example of what is called 'externalising your costs'. The appropriate answer has been provided: lose the gmail/hotmail/yahoo/freemail account and administer your own domain for personal email. Configure the spf and dkim settings on your own domain as required to suit your needs and not those of someone else. -- *** e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel *** Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca 9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241 Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757 Canada L8E 3C3 -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Jonathan H wrote: > OK, thanks. That sort of makes sense. Is it case sensitive? > Is what case sensitive? Function names are case sensitive. Application names have historically been not case sensitive. > > Bonus quickie while I'm here (not worth own thread) - Asterisklint > complains that: > > H_PAT_NON_CANONICAL: pattern '_#' is not in the canonical form '#' > > for the line > > exten => _#,1,Goto(s,1) > > I'm sure I read somewhere it should be _#. > > Am I imagining it?! > You are declaring an extension line with a pattern but the pattern only has literal characters so it really isn't a pattern. It takes more CPU to match than the non-pattern form and is more likely an error. Richard [1] https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Pattern+Matching -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?
OK, thanks. That sort of makes sense. Is it case sensitive? Bonus quickie while I'm here (not worth own thread) - Asterisklint complains that: H_PAT_NON_CANONICAL: pattern '_#' is not in the canonical form '#' for the line exten => _#,1,Goto(s,1) I'm sure I read somewhere it should be _#. Am I imagining it?! On 16 June 2017 at 19:17, Richard Kenner wrote: >> It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this: >> >> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set >> https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET >> >> Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they? > > In some sense they do, but one's an application, meaning that it's > like a subprogram in a programming-language sense, and the other is a > function, which returns a value. > > -- > _ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ > > New to Asterisk? Start here: > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
I believe that Digium is using Mailman already (hence the in-the-clear monthly password reminders). I suggest that whoever administers the Mailman system should probably be able to tell why Gmail is bouncing (sometimes), and if not, there's plenty of active Mailman help available: Mailman-Users mailing list mailman-us...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Adam Goldberg AGP, LLC +1-202-507-9900 -Original Message- From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Dave Platt Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 1:34 PM To: asterisk-users@lists.digium.com Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ? I'm not sure of the precise specifics of how Digium runs the list, but this sort of problem has been a "known issue" with mailing list distributions ever since SPF and similar technologies showed up, almost a decade ago. DomainKeys and DMARC makes it more of an issue, but the overall problem is not new. I had to switch mailing-list packages (from Majordomo to GNU Mailman) for the lists I run, and configure Mailman properly to avoid the worst of the problem. In my experience, the problems affect mailing lists where: - The mailing list software retransmits an incoming message to subscribers, using the same sender address (in the SMTP transaction and/or message headers) that the original sender used. and - The sending domain has some sort of anti-forgery technology in place - either SPF or DomainKeys can trigger the problem. When such a message is retransmitted, one of several things can happen when it hits a mail server that does anti-spoofing enforcement: (1) "Hmmm. This message says it comes from j...@example.com, but the example.com domain has an SPF record which says that only the following five IP addresses are authorized mailers for this domain, and suggests a policy of 'reject' for other IP addresses. This message is coming from an IP address which isn't on that list. Reject it." or (2) "Hmmm. This message says it comes from j...@example.com. It has a DomainKeys signature from that domain, which covers the sender ID, subject, and message body. The signature doesn't match" [sotto voce, the Subject header was modified by the mailing list software to include the group name] "and example.com suggests rejecting messages which say they're from example.com but have bad signature. Reject it." There are almost certainly other, similar scenarios. As a result, messages of this sort will tend to "bounce" from hosts that implement forgery protection, and the mailing-list software will often react to a flurry of such bounces by unsubscribing the intended recipient from the list. None of the workarounds for this are perfect - they all have side effects. [A] Recipients who are being unsubscribed because gmail (e.g.) is bouncing such messages, can change their subscription to the mailing list to "daily digest". Mailman (and I believe most other mailing list packages) send out digests as new messages, with their own domain as the return address, thus avoiding the problems. [B] For SPF, the mailing list software can be configured to "take ownership" of the message... rewriting the sender address into a new form which doesn't break SPF rules. Examples for a message from j...@example.com might be Joe at example.com via Foobar mailing list Joe and so forth. GNU Mailman has the ability to do something along the lines of the first example. It's the configuration I use on the small mailing list I run. I believe it also adds a Reply-To: header to the message to "point back to" the original sender. It's possible to rewrite/substitute the message used in the SMTP session, but leave the original sender's address intact in the message headers. This will be acceptable to many (but not all) systems that check SPF. [C] For DomainKeys... well, if the mailing list software is going to make any changes at all to the headers on messages it's relaying, or change the message body at all, it should strip out any DomainKeys signature that might exist on the message. Or, it can send the whole inbound message (unmodified) as a MIME attachment within a new message it originates. This leaves the signature intact, but can be hard for many mail programs to handle gracefully. It would be up to Digium to do [B] and [C] for the mailing lists, if they so choose. Individual subscribers can do [A] to reduce the risk that they'll be unsubscribed from the list whenever an SPF-protected message is sent through the list. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Aster
Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?
> It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this: > > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET > > Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they? In some sense they do, but one's an application, meaning that it's like a subprogram in a programming-language sense, and the other is a function, which returns a value. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Jonathan H wrote: > It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this: > > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET > > Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they? > Yes they both do the same thing which is set a channel variable. However, when they can be invoked is different. The Set application can only be invoked in dialplan. The SET function can be invoked anywhere a function can be invoked and not just in dialplan. Richard -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[asterisk-users] Difference between Application Set and Function SET?
It was only when I ran AsteriskLint over my dialplan that I noticed this: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Application_Set https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Asterisk+14+Function_SET Hmmm, they both seem to do the same thing. Or don't they? Confused! -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
I'm not sure of the precise specifics of how Digium runs the list, but this sort of problem has been a "known issue" with mailing list distributions ever since SPF and similar technologies showed up, almost a decade ago. DomainKeys and DMARC makes it more of an issue, but the overall problem is not new. I had to switch mailing-list packages (from Majordomo to GNU Mailman) for the lists I run, and configure Mailman properly to avoid the worst of the problem. In my experience, the problems affect mailing lists where: - The mailing list software retransmits an incoming message to subscribers, using the same sender address (in the SMTP transaction and/or message headers) that the original sender used. and - The sending domain has some sort of anti-forgery technology in place - either SPF or DomainKeys can trigger the problem. When such a message is retransmitted, one of several things can happen when it hits a mail server that does anti-spoofing enforcement: (1) "Hmmm. This message says it comes from j...@example.com, but the example.com domain has an SPF record which says that only the following five IP addresses are authorized mailers for this domain, and suggests a policy of 'reject' for other IP addresses. This message is coming from an IP address which isn't on that list. Reject it." or (2) "Hmmm. This message says it comes from j...@example.com. It has a DomainKeys signature from that domain, which covers the sender ID, subject, and message body. The signature doesn't match" [sotto voce, the Subject header was modified by the mailing list software to include the group name] "and example.com suggests rejecting messages which say they're from example.com but have bad signature. Reject it." There are almost certainly other, similar scenarios. As a result, messages of this sort will tend to "bounce" from hosts that implement forgery protection, and the mailing-list software will often react to a flurry of such bounces by unsubscribing the intended recipient from the list. None of the workarounds for this are perfect - they all have side effects. [A] Recipients who are being unsubscribed because gmail (e.g.) is bouncing such messages, can change their subscription to the mailing list to "daily digest". Mailman (and I believe most other mailing list packages) send out digests as new messages, with their own domain as the return address, thus avoiding the problems. [B] For SPF, the mailing list software can be configured to "take ownership" of the message... rewriting the sender address into a new form which doesn't break SPF rules. Examples for a message from j...@example.com might be Joe at example.com via Foobar mailing list Joe and so forth. GNU Mailman has the ability to do something along the lines of the first example. It's the configuration I use on the small mailing list I run. I believe it also adds a Reply-To: header to the message to "point back to" the original sender. It's possible to rewrite/substitute the message used in the SMTP session, but leave the original sender's address intact in the message headers. This will be acceptable to many (but not all) systems that check SPF. [C] For DomainKeys... well, if the mailing list software is going to make any changes at all to the headers on messages it's relaying, or change the message body at all, it should strip out any DomainKeys signature that might exist on the message. Or, it can send the whole inbound message (unmodified) as a MIME attachment within a new message it originates. This leaves the signature intact, but can be hard for many mail programs to handle gracefully. It would be up to Digium to do [B] and [C] for the mailing lists, if they so choose. Individual subscribers can do [A] to reduce the risk that they'll be unsubscribed from the list whenever an SPF-protected message is sent through the list. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
I'd hazard to say it probably is Digium's "fault", this was a recent and now consistent problem, which started within the last month or so. I'm on 7 other Linux-related mailing lists which all use similar mailer daemons, and none have this issue. I have been subscribed to Asterisk Users/Developers for over two years without issue. Since the mailing-list system is seeing "bounces" on outbound, and I am not when transmitting INTO the mailing list - this tells me that outbound emails from the mailing-list system to Gmail are getting returned because of some characteristic (either content, TX security functionality, or mailer system configuration). Mail being sent by Digium (even as a conduit for user communications) can only be diagnosed by Digium. I'd imagine that if the mail admin looked at how many bounce emails have since been sent over time, there will be a spike that can be correlated to: * sender email addresses * email subject/body content, * a change they made in their system, * a change they were supposed to make to their system but failed to. And to the person who suggested using a non-free email, I do have those accounts on my own mail system - but I don't use them for newsletters, re-occurring bulletins, or public Linux mailing lists where "everyone" is the receiver. Not good web hygiene IMHO - like a white picket fence around a yard, the general public can walk up and talk (to my Gmail), but I prefer to only let family and friends through the gate and in the front door (private email account). This also makes filtering and spam detection much easier while not sucking up my server time and storage space ;-). My other issue is the quarterly password email reminder where the password is sent in plain text... (facepalm). Probably why spam has been a problem on this board. -Tim On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 5:51 AM, John Novack wrote: > > Jonathan H wrote: > > On 16 June 2017 at 08:38, J Montoya or A J > Stiles wrote: > > > It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with > syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model > > Not really Gmail's fault, either. Someone above said they had the > same problem with Comcast.net. > > Gmail complies with the relevant RFCs just fine. It's most likely > simply because most people who use email, use Gmail. > > In addition, gmail properly implement SPF and DMARC checking. > > There's over 1 billion gmail account as of 2016, so that's why most > people who are bouncing would be gmail. > > > Correct Had another one yesterday > Am on several other mailing lists that have no such issue. > Something related to the mailer Digium uses or their ISP > > > John Novack > > -- > > Dog is my Co-pilot > > > -- > _ > -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- > > Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk. > org/ > > New to Asterisk? Start here: > https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started > > asterisk-users mailing list > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] pjsip: asterisk can't decide which codec to use
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 12:29 PM, Michael Maier wrote: > I just tested your fix 2 times w/ using the scenario mentioned in the > bug report. It has been working for me. No more flipping. > > Asterisks indeed commits more than one codec in ok sdp, but always uses > the first one afterwards. Hopefully the peer always handles it the same > way. I would have thought that the ok sdp contains just one codec (the > best). There's actually a feature for just that in master, preferred_codec_only. It'll be available in 15. The new behavior in the branches with multiple codecs in the answer mirrors that of chan_sip, so it's pretty safe. -- Joshua Colp Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] pjsip: asterisk can't decide which codec to use
On 05/13/2017 at 07:21 AM Michael Maier wrote: > On 05/12/2017 at 08:49 PM, Joshua Colp wrote: >> On Fri, May 12, 2017, at 02:46 PM, Michael Maier wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>> If I'm doing exactly the same call originated with another extension, >>> there can't be seen these frequent changes. But the strange thing is, >>> that in both cases the part between extension and asterisk doesn't show >>> any codec changes ... . >>> >>> Deeper investigations show, that if the conference (callee) sends the >>> first rtp package (-> g711 - should be g722), things are going choppy, >>> if the extension (caller) sends the first package (g722), things are >>> running stable. >>> >>> >>> Any idea to convince asterisk always to use the first codec of ok sdp >>> or how to convince asterisk to put only one codec to ok sdp (the first). >> >> This is not currently an option in chan_pjsip but I'd suggest filing an >> issue[1] for this scenario with all available information. >> >> [1] https://issues.asterisk.org/jira > > https://issues.asterisk.org/jira/browse/ASTERISK-26996 I just tested your fix 2 times w/ using the scenario mentioned in the bug report. It has been working for me. No more flipping. Asterisks indeed commits more than one codec in ok sdp, but always uses the first one afterwards. Hopefully the peer always handles it the same way. I would have thought that the ok sdp contains just one codec (the best). Thanks, Michael -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk 13.16 / pjsip / t.38: res_pjsip_t38.c:207 t38_automatic_reject: Automatically rejecting T.38 request on channel 'PJSIP/91-00000007'
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 10:49 AM, Michael Maier wrote: > > t38modem and asterisk are using > > m=image 35622 udptl t38 >^ > > Provider uses > > m=image 35622 UDPTL t38 >^ > > Could this be a problem? If I'm sending internal only, it's always > lowercase. Looking at the tests we have we only use 'udptl' as the transport. Without diving deep into the SDP negotiator it is possible that it gets upset at that, as we would only produce 'udptl'. If the SDP negotiator in PJSIP is case sensitive then you'd get a declined stream like you see. Looking at the T.38 examples from the ITU doc also shows it in lowercase, so uppercase is probably not commonly used. -- Joshua Colp Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk 13.16 / pjsip / t.38: res_pjsip_t38.c:207 t38_automatic_reject: Automatically rejecting T.38 request on channel 'PJSIP/91-00000007'
Am 16.06.2017 um 11:12 schrieb Joshua Colp: On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 02:13 AM, Michael Maier wrote: Has anybody any idea why asterisk drops the media stream in the 200 OK? The channel has been T38_ENABLED before! Or is it necessary to add more debug code? Who does the negotiating? Only asterisk or is pjsip doing some parts, too? Asterisk does the T.38 negotiation and produces the answer SDP, PJSIP does the SDP negotiation. It's likely in the realm of Asterisk where it is doing that. t38modem and asterisk are using m=image 35622 udptl t38 ^ Provider uses m=image 35622 UDPTL t38 ^ Could this be a problem? If I'm sending internal only, it's always lowercase. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
Jonathan H wrote: On 16 June 2017 at 08:38, J Montoya or A J Stiles wrote: It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model Not really Gmail's fault, either. Someone above said they had the same problem with Comcast.net. Gmail complies with the relevant RFCs just fine. It's most likely simply because most people who use email, use Gmail. In addition, gmail properly implement SPF and DMARC checking. There's over 1 billion gmail account as of 2016, so that's why most people who are bouncing would be gmail. Correct Had another one yesterday Am on several other mailing lists that have no such issue. Something related to the mailer Digium uses or their ISP John Novack -- Dog is my Co-pilot -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Is this the future of telephony?
On Friday 16 Jun 2017, Christopher van de Sande wrote: > So does anyone here think the traditional telephone company will go > extinct, and voice communication will take place via email like (or > equal to) sip uri's? Hardly! The job of the "traditional telephone company" has always been to connect a pair of wires at one end to a different pair of wires at the other end. That isn't going away anytime soon. There are more pairs of wires, with more and faster-changing signals travelling along them, that still need marshalling -- perhaps in more complicated ways than just one-to-one. Whenever I am sending electrical impulses along wires and possibly via radio links, maybe even out into space and back, whether to someone in the same street or a different country, someone has to be making sure that those electrical impulses come out in the right place. That is still the domain of telecommunications companies; they are just doing it with rather more bandwidth than the human voice. The need for electrical impulses to be delivered to the correct destination still stands. What has changed is, there are more ways than ever to make use of this "electronic logistics" service, and markets are emerging and evolving. -- JM Note: Originating address only accepts e-mail from list! If replying off- list, change address to asterisk1list at earthshod dot co dot uk . -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] asterisk 13.16 / pjsip / t.38: res_pjsip_t38.c:207 t38_automatic_reject: Automatically rejecting T.38 request on channel 'PJSIP/91-00000007'
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017, at 02:13 AM, Michael Maier wrote: > Has anybody any idea why asterisk drops the media stream in the 200 OK? > The channel has been T38_ENABLED before! Or is it necessary to add more > debug code? Who does the negotiating? > Only asterisk or is pjsip doing some parts, too? Asterisk does the T.38 negotiation and produces the answer SDP, PJSIP does the SDP negotiation. It's likely in the realm of Asterisk where it is doing that. -- Joshua Colp Digium, Inc. | Senior Software Developer 445 Jan Davis Drive NW - Huntsville, AL 35806 - US Check us out at: www.digium.com & www.asterisk.org -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:38:59AM +0100, J Montoya or A J Stiles wrote: > > Whatever has been done, if anything, isn't working effectively. At this > > point I'd like to see some response from the mailing list admin about any > > root-cause efforts, AFAIC this is starting to smear the Digium/Asterisk > > brand's ability to handle IT related issues... No response = no confidence > > vote. > > It's hardly Digium's fault, Actually it is. They are pretending to send email from our/your/my emailadresses without taking the proper steps how to do this in a modern age. [snip google rant] DMARC reports inform me that most rejections come from Google (500+), Microsoft has far far less rejection (less than 10 IIRC), then comcast and some other mail providers. It is just that most people (choose) use Google, get over it. What Google (and many many others) is doing is for the benifit of reducing email spoofing and spam. Proper SPF/DKIM/DMARC are a must if you want to send mail to the big parties. The time you could simply run your own smtpd without any cares are long since gone, you need to comply to current SMTP related RFCs to get mail accepted. I'm still maintaining the idea that simply enabling DKIM signing on this list solves the problem. It is supported by the MTAs I can see in the headers and I linked to a howto in the past. But Digium doesn't need to have this kind of knowledge, their business is not SMTP based but SIP based (and I think they are great at that business). But since the mailinglists are supplemental support services it would be in their best interest to fix this mess in some way. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Is this the future of telephony?
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 08:56:29PM -0400, Christopher van de Sande wrote: > I just setup an anonymous endpoint in pjsip.conf and a context that > forwards to $EXTEN and when I setup the correct SRV records, it seems > that any SIP client that's smart enough can just dial my SIP/email > address. Is this what the future looks like? Look forward to a lot of SPIT (SPAM over Internet Telephony). BTW how to you expect to get the data on your mobile device? That is a "traditional" telephone company its bussiness, providing network capabilities to endusers. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
On 16 June 2017 at 08:38, J Montoya or A J Stiles wrote: > It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with > syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model Not really Gmail's fault, either. Someone above said they had the same problem with Comcast.net. Gmail complies with the relevant RFCs just fine. It's most likely simply because most people who use email, use Gmail. In addition, gmail properly implement SPF and DMARC checking. There's over 1 billion gmail account as of 2016, so that's why most people who are bouncing would be gmail. -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] OT: Explain where mailing list bouncing comes from ?
On Thursday 15 Jun 2017, Tim S wrote: > Whatever has been done, if anything, isn't working effectively. At this > point I'd like to see some response from the mailing list admin about any > root-cause efforts, AFAIC this is starting to smear the Digium/Asterisk > brand's ability to handle IT related issues... No response = no confidence > vote. It's hardly Digium's fault, if Google have decided that playing nicely with syntactically-valid messages doesn't fit their business model (which is to know everything about everyone; purely in order to push them the "right" advertisements, in spite of whatever uses less other actors with less benign intentions might make of this information, of course). The cure is to pay for a proper e-mail hosting service. "Free" services such as Gmail are overpriced. -- JM or AJS Note: Originating address only accepts e-mail from list! If replying off- list, change address to asterisk1list at earthshod dot co dot uk . -- _ -- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com -- Check out the new Asterisk community forum at: https://community.asterisk.org/ New to Asterisk? Start here: https://wiki.asterisk.org/wiki/display/AST/Getting+Started asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users