On 09/15/2010 08:37 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Cristi Starasciuc
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 09/15/2010 03:09 PM, Tony Graziano wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Mircea Carasel
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Tony Graziano
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
That is the design behavior, because in order to receive
a fax it must have an email address to forward it to.
Yes, correct, but even if you have an email address saved in
user-portal, I noticed that the fax extension text field
remains disabled and you cannot enter the fax extension...
I am thinking that when at least one e-mail address is saved,
the fax extension text field to become enabled...
Or perhaps their is something else wrong. The user must have
voicemail permissions in order for this to work. I am running a
build of 4.3.0-019022 and have users with email address filled
out and it does allow me to enter (numbers only) in the fax
extension field. There should be some loosening of the fax
extension allowable characters though to allow any valid sip
alias (+, letters, and any other characters the user alias field
would allow in order to be able to accept t.38 at some point).
Also, I need some clarification regarding to FAX extension
number versus FAX DID number
XX-4989 requires for sipXconfig side to add the FAX DID
number, and I am wondering if this is the same as the FAX
extension.
I created some sub-tasks there... but I may be wrong.
Thanks,
Mircea
There was definitely something wrong with the fax extension field:
I have raised
http://track.sipfoundry.org/browse/XX-8903
There is already an alias to the fax extension: (in alias.xml)
<item>
<identity>4...@sipdomain</identity>
<contact>"John Doe"<sip:~~ff~...@sipdomain></contact>
<relation>fax</relation>
</item>
I'm thinking that if both emails are blanked, in addition to
disabling the field the extension should be deleted, so that the
fax alias is not written to alias.xml. What do you think?
That is what I think. I think the alias needs to be be re-keyed in if
there email address is added. I don;t see the point of "graying it out
or saving it" as a pseudo way to make the data entry easier if the
admin wants to make it on and off. Alternately, there should be a
DISABLE/ENABLE feature so the previously entered alis in fax can be
restored, but I think that's a hazardous exercide.
Why? Suzie is on vacation for a week. She asks to have all her faxes
sent to Jim. Admin disables Suzi'e DID, so its not in alias.xml
anywhere systemwide. Admin adds the alias for her fax DID to Jim's
account. Suzie gets back and says "please re-enable my fax, thanks."
Admin does and gets an alias duplicate and has to track down Suzy or
dig in notes to find out who has that DID, or find it himself. At
least Jim will continue to receive faxes no matter what, even if they
are not his.
So, is the DID number required? (there currently isn't any field
where this number can go, so one must be created).
Cheers,
Ciuc
There is already a fax number in user's contact information. Do we
consider this as being the DID number for the fax service?
_______________________________________________
sipx-dev mailing list
[email protected]
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
