Klaus Darilion writes:
> What about a config option
>gototriggersinvalid=yes (default=no)
> in extensions.conf for users which are using this feature?
Please, no more options. There are way too many options already.
Since I personally believe the use of the special extensions should be
limi
amit mehta wrote:
> Hello Users,
>
> Is anyone aware about a solution to call incoming number and dictate the
> files by using Dictate feature of Asterisk used for Medical
> Transcription industry.
I guess nobody will read your email as you:
1. hijacked a thread
(http://www.internet-descriptio
Hello Users,
Is anyone aware about a solution to call incoming number and dictate the
files by using Dictate feature of Asterisk used for Medical Transcription
industry.
Looking forward for help.
Thanks,
Amit
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 11:19:08 sean darcy wrote:
>> Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:51:23 Klaus Darilion wrote:
Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Barry L. Kline wrote:
>>
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
.
> ... but I absolutely
> defend fixing this bug in Gosub, given that I'm the designer of it, and it was
> never supposed to fail into the "i" extension.
>
Wow.
sean
___
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
Why not expand the usage of the i extension? If not in 1.6.0, then some
later 1.6. Call it a feature enhancement.
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 11:19:08 sean darcy wrote:
>> Tilghman Lesher wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:51:23 Klaus Darilion wrote:
Til
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 11:19:08 sean darcy wrote:
> Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:51:23 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> >> Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
> >>> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Barry L. Kline wrote:
> > that is supposed to
Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:51:23 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
>>> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
Barry L. Kline wrote:
> that is supposed to gosub into the incoming extension at priority 1.
> Versions b
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:51:23 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
>>> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
Barry L. Kline wrote:
> that is supposed to gosub into the incoming extension at priority 1.
> Versions befor
On Wednesday 25 February 2009 09:51:23 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
> > On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> >> Barry L. Kline wrote:
> >>> that is supposed to gosub into the incoming extension at priority 1.
> >>> Versions before 1.6.0.6 would drop into
Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Barry L. Kline wrote:
>>> that is supposed to gosub into the incoming extension at priority 1.
>>> Versions before 1.6.0.6 would drop into the incoming,i,1 priority if the
>>> requested extension wasn't prese
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jared Smith wrote:
> While I personally believe it's a bug, it has been in Asterisk for a
> very long time, and I know from teaching Asterisk training classes that
> there are *many* *many* people abusing this in their dialplans. I'd be
> quite hesita
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 16:58 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> If Goto behaves that way, that's a bug. As stated in a prior email, the
> "i" extension should only be implicitly invoked when waiting for a new
> extension and the typed extension does not match anything.
While I personally believe it's
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 13:44:25 Barry L. Kline wrote:
>> Here's one that may be of interest to any upgraders. If you rely on the
>> behavior of gosub you may want to make note of this change.
>>
>> I have an incoming call context:
>>
>> exten => _,n,GoSub(incoming
Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
> On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> Barry L. Kline wrote:
>>> that is supposed to gosub into the incoming extension at priority 1.
>>> Versions before 1.6.0.6 would drop into the incoming,i,1 priority if the
>>> requested extension wasn't prese
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 16:07:52 Klaus Darilion wrote:
> Barry L. Kline wrote:
> > that is supposed to gosub into the incoming extension at priority 1.
> > Versions before 1.6.0.6 would drop into the incoming,i,1 priority if the
> > requested extension wasn't present in the incoming context.
>
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 13:44:25 Barry L. Kline wrote:
> Here's one that may be of interest to any upgraders. If you rely on the
> behavior of gosub you may want to make note of this change.
>
> I have an incoming call context:
>
> exten => _,n,GoSub(incoming,${EXTEN},1(${EXTEN}));
>
> tha
Barry L. Kline wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Here's one that may be of interest to any upgraders. If you rely on the
> behavior of gosub you may want to make note of this change.
>
> I have an incoming call context:
>
> exten => _,n,GoSub(incoming,${EXTEN},1($
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Here's one that may be of interest to any upgraders. If you rely on the
behavior of gosub you may want to make note of this change.
I have an incoming call context:
exten => _,n,GoSub(incoming,${EXTEN},1(${EXTEN}));
that is supposed to gosub in
19 matches
Mail list logo
