FAX aliases should be kept separately. Deliberate FAX calls should not have to pass by any type of auto detection. I think an auto detection is warranted though. A fax alias should go to the ~~ff~ resource in every event. There are a lot of firms that have different fax numbers that would be DID's and they should be specified that they are in a fax ONLY situation. Imagine the fax is sent to a normal number and the sender says I cant send you a fax because your voicemail picks up. FAX DID's should NOT follow user call forwarding, etc. So I think it would be easier to guarantee that a specific call flow would not impact something that is specifically stated to be a fax.
I also think at some point (soon) there ought to be a global lookup to see where an alias exists in the system. Alias lookup, instead of relying on the error "Already exists in system, then try to hunt for it...". Faxing adds more aliases to the system, so it should also be searchable. On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Cristi Starasciuc <[email protected]>wrote: > On 09/15/2010 08:37 PM, Tony Graziano wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Cristi Starasciuc > <[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]>wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 2:31 AM, Tony Graziano < >>> [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/ > -- ====================== Tony Graziano, Manager Telephone: 434.984.8430 sip: [email protected] Fax: 434.984.8431 Email: [email protected] LAN/Telephony/Security and Control Systems Helpdesk: Telephone: 434.984.8426 sip: [email protected] Fax: 434.984.8427 Helpdesk Contract Customers: http://www.myitdepartment.net/gethelp/ Why do mathematicians always confuse Halloween and Christmas? Because 31 Oct = 25 Dec.
_______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev/
