Yes, this sounds good. The assumption is the patch flags to admin the reason for rejection.
IAN -----Original Message----- From: Mossman, Paul (CAR:9D30) Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:48 PM To: Maclaren, Ian (CAR:9P10); Krzeminski, Damian (BL60:9D30); [email protected] Subject: RE: [sipX-dev] IM IDs as aliases Ian wrote: > For those IM's we do check, an alarm message requesting another name > be selected would help avoid IM IDs equivalent to exising User name. > In my opinion, there are enough name combinations out there that I > don't think accommodating new user names equivalent to existing IM IDs > is necessary. Robert tells me there's a pending patch that rejects attempts to configure IM IDs that would clash. I think that's a good approach. Hopefully this is what you are also suggesting Ian. (Versus a new formal "Alarm" type.) -Paul [email protected] _______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
