That's actually a really good point:
http://www.opensips.org/html/docs/modules/1.6.x/auth_db.html#id228115

"As described in the previous section this parameter contains name of
column holding pre-calculated HA1 string that were calculated
including the domain in the username. This parameter is used only when
calculate_ha1 is set to 0 and user agent send a credentials containing
the domain in the username"

I think Richard solved this for you. Because password_column_2 points
to the column with the hash for the user+domain, it's going to work if
they put the domain in the username. I think your best solution here
is to set password_column_2 to the same value as password_column and
not use the ha1b field at all.



On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 6:35 AM, Richard Revels <[email protected]> wrote:
> I think if you don't populate the ha1b column in the subscriber table it 
> would also solve this problem by not passing the auth check.  Depending on 
> how you populate the table this may be done outside your control in which 
> case you could use the password_column_2 modparam and set it to a column like 
> ha1 (rather than ha1b) and it would also always fail if the username auth 
> field also contained the domain.
>
> Richard
>
> On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:22 PM, Douglas Lane wrote:
>
>> Hi Brett,
>>
>> Big thanks for all the assistance. I'll work on some patches tonight to
>> the route logic, and let you all know in the morning.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Doug
>>
>> Brett Nemeroff wrote:
>>> Bah....
>>> I think I spoke to quick the auth id does have the domain in it..
>>>
>>> I think something is buggy here really It shouldn't be authenticating
>>> like that. For a temp fix I'd just use the textopts mod to reject auth
>>> ids with invalid characters. I'm interested in how this gets
>>> resolved..
>>>
>>> Maybe you can do something like
>>> $avp(s:authname) = $(Au{uri.user}) + $ar
>>>
>>> or this would be userful too:
>>> $avp(s:username) = $(Au{uri.user})
>>>
>>> Or something similar.. BTW, there seems to be some discrepancy in the
>>> docs over "$ar"
>>>
>>> Let us know what works. :)
>>> -Brett
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Douglas Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>
>>>> Auth is definately being done on the INVITE as well, but once again,
>>>> this succeeds even though it has another @domain part.
>>>>
>>>> I know it all looks right, the problem is, OpenSIPS is even storing the
>>>> location data as username [at] domain [dot] com [at] domain [dot] com.
>>>> And I can't rely on using the Auth ID for billing as a lot of other
>>>> correctly configured clients are using
>>>>
>>>> Digest username="doug",realm="domain.com".
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'd have to put the two vars together, $au and $ar (or $ad) and
>>>> then if $au contains a domain name, just to strip it off or something?
>>>>
>>>> As requested, trace follows:
>>>>
>>>> IP: 1.2.3.4 is the client
>>>> IP: 5.6.7.8 is the OpenSIPS proxy
>>>>
>>>> T 1.2.3.4:62689 -> 5.6.7.8:5060 [AP]
>>>> INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0.
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>> 1.2.3.4:24022;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-552d4b70ed34a43e-1---d8754z-;rport.
>>>> Max-Forwards: 70.
>>>> Contact: <sip:doug%[email protected]:62689;transport=TCP>.
>>>> To: <sip:[email protected]>.
>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=1b164627.
>>>> Call-ID: YzdjMGRjNDNhODNiMWE1MTMzYjY0ZDJkMDNmNWE5MGU..
>>>> CSeq: 1 INVITE.
>>>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, MESSAGE,
>>>> SUBSCRIBE, INFO.
>>>> Content-Type: application/sdp.
>>>> User-Agent: X-Lite Beta release 4.0 v3 stamp 55153.
>>>> Content-Length: 188.
>>>> .
>>>> v=0.
>>>> o=- 7 2 IN IP4 192.168.0.113.
>>>> s=CounterPath X-Lite 4.0.
>>>> c=IN IP4 1.2.3.4.
>>>> t=0 0.
>>>> m=audio 58262 RTP/AVP 0 8 3 101.
>>>> a=sendrecv.
>>>> a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.
>>>> a=fmtp:101 0-15.
>>>>
>>>> #
>>>> T 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:62689 [AP]
>>>> SIP/2.0 100 Trying.
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>> 1.2.3.4:24022;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-552d4b70ed34a43e-1---d8754z-;rport=62689.
>>>> To: <sip:[email protected]>.
>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=1b164627.
>>>> Call-ID: YzdjMGRjNDNhODNiMWE1MTMzYjY0ZDJkMDNmNWE5MGU..
>>>> CSeq: 1 INVITE.
>>>> Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.1-tls (x86_64/linux)).
>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> #
>>>> T 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:62689 [AP]
>>>> SIP/2.0 407 Proxy Authentication Required.
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>> 1.2.3.4:24022;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-552d4b70ed34a43e-1---d8754z-;rport=62689.
>>>> To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cdff758d742c799b04c91123cd1608d5.fdd1.
>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=1b164627.
>>>> Call-ID: YzdjMGRjNDNhODNiMWE1MTMzYjY0ZDJkMDNmNWE5MGU..
>>>> CSeq: 1 INVITE.
>>>> Proxy-Authenticate: Digest realm="domain.com",
>>>> nonce="4bbcd61d00000a1268c6ccae9b032af3204121ac0623b648".
>>>> Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.1-tls (x86_64/linux)).
>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> ###
>>>> T 1.2.3.4:62689 -> 5.6.7.8:5060 [AP]
>>>> ACK sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0.
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>> 1.2.3.4:24022;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-552d4b70ed34a43e-1---d8754z-;rport.
>>>> Max-Forwards: 70.
>>>> To: <sip:[email protected]>;tag=cdff758d742c799b04c91123cd1608d5.fdd1.
>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=1b164627.
>>>> Call-ID: YzdjMGRjNDNhODNiMWE1MTMzYjY0ZDJkMDNmNWE5MGU..
>>>> CSeq: 1 ACK.
>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> ##
>>>> T 1.2.3.4:62689 -> 5.6.7.8:5060 [AP]
>>>> INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0.
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>> 1.2.3.4:24022;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-a5ba7a6914ca1e45-1---d8754z-;rport.
>>>> Max-Forwards: 70.
>>>> Contact: <sip:doug%[email protected]:62689;transport=TCP>.
>>>> To: <sip:[email protected]>.
>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=1b164627.
>>>> Call-ID: YzdjMGRjNDNhODNiMWE1MTMzYjY0ZDJkMDNmNWE5MGU..
>>>> CSeq: 2 INVITE.
>>>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, MESSAGE,
>>>> SUBSCRIBE, INFO.
>>>> Content-Type: application/sdp.
>>>> Proxy-Authorization: Digest
>>>> username="[email protected]",realm="domain.com",nonce="4bbcd61d00000a1268c6ccae9b032af3204121ac0623b648",uri="sip:[email protected]",response="2a7d0482c71d07180af31548fc344904",algorithm=MD5.
>>>> User-Agent: X-Lite Beta release 4.0 v3 stamp 55153.
>>>> Content-Length: 188.
>>>> .
>>>> v=0.
>>>> o=- 7 2 IN IP4 192.168.0.113.
>>>> s=CounterPath X-Lite 4.0.
>>>> c=IN IP4 1.2.3.4.
>>>> t=0 0.
>>>> m=audio 58262 RTP/AVP 0 8 3 101.
>>>> a=sendrecv.
>>>> a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000.
>>>> a=fmtp:101 0-15.
>>>>
>>>> ##
>>>> T 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:62689 [AP]
>>>> SIP/2.0 100 Trying.
>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>> 1.2.3.4:24022;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-a5ba7a6914ca1e45-1---d8754z-;rport=62689.
>>>> To: <sip:[email protected]>.
>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=1b164627.
>>>> Call-ID: YzdjMGRjNDNhODNiMWE1MTMzYjY0ZDJkMDNmNWE5MGU..
>>>> CSeq: 2 INVITE.
>>>> Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.1-tls (x86_64/linux)).
>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>>
>>>> Brett Nemeroff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well something is up...
>>>>> look at the trace, the auth username in the REGISTER is *right*..
>>>>>
>>>>> that $Au is being set from the FROM I suspect (which is WRONG).
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost as if authentication is not being performed on the INVITE at
>>>>> all. Can you send a trace of the INVITE?
>>>>>
>>>>> If you arn't authenticating the INVITEs I'd expect this behavior with
>>>>> an improperly set client.
>>>>> -Brett
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:34 PM, Douglas Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For billing , I use an AVP which is then sent to FreeRADIUS for
>>>>>> normalization by CDRTool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The billing_party avp is constructed like so:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $avp(s:billing_party)=$Au;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now I've just read the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> $Au - username for accounting purposes. It's a selective pseudo variable
>>>>>> (inherited from acc module). It returns $au if exits or From username
>>>>>> otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm I'm wondering if its using the From header?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for authorization, I'm sure it should be failing - I actually thought
>>>>>> I had stuffed up my multi-domain support, or done something wrong, but
>>>>>> definitely domains are working correctly. As far as I'm aware, the
>>>>>> username section in the digest should only hold the username and not the
>>>>>> realm / domain name in it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, the fact that the auth id contains the username and the
>>>>>> realm is something I need to reject as its not a truly legal
>>>>>> registration / authorization. I'm assuming auth_db module problem does a
>>>>>> sanity check on the username section of the digest when authorizing, and
>>>>>> if it has a @ portion in it, probably strips it out so that it can
>>>>>> register successfully. Hmmm thats actually something I should test - see
>>>>>> if I change the auth id to something like username [at] bob [dot] com
>>>>>> and then have domain [dot] com in the domain part and see if that 
>>>>>> registers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brett Nemeroff wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ok, well something is wrong there..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect that you are probably using different headers for billing
>>>>>>> and authentication..
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The auth should really be failing...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Actually, relooking at your REGISTER message, the auth id is fine,
>>>>>>> which is why the REGISTER succeeds.. However, I bet you arn't logging
>>>>>>> the auth id for billing.. I can't remember how CDRTool logs that bit
>>>>>>> of the top of my head.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Douglas Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree to the rejecting part, as then client can phone support. The
>>>>>>>> problem is, if I don't make a plan to do some fancy searches to reject
>>>>>>>> the message, OpenSIPS happily auths the request correctly, and the user
>>>>>>>> can make and receive calls.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thats what has had me a panic as www_authorize returns success on this,
>>>>>>>> so does proxy_authorize. The issue is when the billing server (CDRTool)
>>>>>>>> does its rating, it sees username [at] domain [dot] com [at] domain
>>>>>>>> [dot] com as the billing party, instead of username [at] domain [dot]
>>>>>>>> com and hey presto - FREE calls. (well default rated anyway)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, was looking through the textopt functions, and search() seems
>>>>>>>> the right tool to use, but I don't see it has any options to narrow 
>>>>>>>> down
>>>>>>>> to like the WWW header as well as the To header of the message - any
>>>>>>>> suggestions?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brett Nemeroff wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There's only so much you can do for user error... either correct it
>>>>>>>>> silently, allowing them to work, even though they did it wrong (you
>>>>>>>>> could automatically remove the extra domain param), or reject it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suppose a third method would be to redirect them to a feature server
>>>>>>>>> that could actually announce to them what they did wrong "I'm sorry,
>>>>>>>>> but you seem to have configured your SIP client improperly".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I personally would reject this kind of failure.. which I think would
>>>>>>>>> be the default behavior if you didn't do anything since the username
>>>>>>>>> param wouldn't match anything valid.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -Brett
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Douglas Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Brett,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I know the problem is with the auth id, and I was using Xlite as an
>>>>>>>>>> example. Unfortunately when we hand the SIP accounts out, we don't 
>>>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>>>> control over the client setting up the end device (such as an
>>>>>>>>>> audiocodes, siemens, linksys or alike). So I was looking for a way I
>>>>>>>>>> could reject it due to invalid characters.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'll look into textopts and move forward from there - thanks for all 
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Brett Nemeroff wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You could probably use textops to search the auth username for the 
>>>>>>>>>>> "@"
>>>>>>>>>>> character and simply reject with a code like "401","Invalid 
>>>>>>>>>>> Characters
>>>>>>>>>>> in Auth Id"
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> With clients like xlite, it'll probably display in the screen when
>>>>>>>>>>> attempting to register.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> However, this really seems like the auth id on the client is just
>>>>>>>>>>> setup improperly and should be an easy fix:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Seems like in XLite you have:
>>>>>>>>>>> Auth Id: [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> when it should be
>>>>>>>>>>> Auth Id: username
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Douglas Lane <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Iñaki Baz Castillo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2010/4/6 Douglas Lane <[email protected]>:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My clients register as username [at] domain [dot] com, which 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> works
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perfectly. CDRTool then checks the billing party portion, and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bills
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Recently, I've noticed the odd client registering as username 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [at]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain [dot] com [at] domain [dot] com. This causes a problem in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billing server, as it tries to find subscriber username [at] 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> domain
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [dot] com [at] domain [dot] com instead of username [at] domain 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [dot] com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which exact REGISTER field you mean? From URI? To URI? Contact 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> URI?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> credentials username? credentials realm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please paste an example of such REGISTER?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Inaki,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As requested, please find below REGISTER request:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> IP 1.2.3.4 is the client
>>>>>>>>>>>> IP 5.6.7.8 is the server
>>>>>>>>>>>> domain.com is the domain/realm used to register
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> T 1.2.3.4:58889 -> 5.6.7.8:5060 [AP]
>>>>>>>>>>>> REGISTER sip:domain.com SIP/2.0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>>>>>>>>>> 192.168.0.236:10990;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-375adf06ebab9063-1---d8754z-;rport.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Max-Forwards: 70.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Contact:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <sip:doug%[email protected];rinstance=0051b76a880b6325;transport=TCP>.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <sip:doug%[email protected]>.
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=7adae37b.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Call-ID: ZDlmN2JmMmY4ZjdmYTU2MmI5YzAyYjZmMTE4ODBjY2Q..
>>>>>>>>>>>> CSeq: 2 REGISTER.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Expires: 3600.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Allow: INVITE, ACK, CANCEL, OPTIONS, BYE, REFER, NOTIFY, MESSAGE,
>>>>>>>>>>>> SUBSCRIBE, INFO.
>>>>>>>>>>>> User-Agent: X-Lite Beta release 4.0 v3 stamp 55153.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Authorization: Digest
>>>>>>>>>>>> username="[email protected]",realm="domain.com",nonce="4bbc186000007a99f8b3ca45e77563c7b19f6ea461817c3e",uri="sip:domain.com",response="96bf9f599ddf3057c5bc48faf9a1d923",algorithm=MD5.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>>>>>>> T 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:58889 [AP]
>>>>>>>>>>>> SIP/2.0 100 Trying.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>>>>>>>>>> 192.168.0.236:10990;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-375adf06ebab9063-1---d8754z-;rport=58889;received=1.2.3.4.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: <sip:doug%[email protected]>.
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=7adae37b.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Call-ID: ZDlmN2JmMmY4ZjdmYTU2MmI5YzAyYjZmMTE4ODBjY2Q..
>>>>>>>>>>>> CSeq: 2 REGISTER.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.1-tls (x86_64/linux)).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> #
>>>>>>>>>>>> T 5.6.7.8:5060 -> 1.2.3.4:58889 [AP]
>>>>>>>>>>>> SIP/2.0 200 OK.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Via: SIP/2.0/TCP
>>>>>>>>>>>> 192.168.0.236:10990;branch=z9hG4bK-d8754z-375adf06ebab9063-1---d8754z-;rport=58889;received=1.2.3.4.
>>>>>>>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=cdff758d742c799b04c91123cd1608d5.5bf0.
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: <sip:doug%[email protected]>;tag=7adae37b.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Call-ID: ZDlmN2JmMmY4ZjdmYTU2MmI5YzAyYjZmMTE4ODBjY2Q..
>>>>>>>>>>>> CSeq: 2 REGISTER.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Contact:
>>>>>>>>>>>> <sip:doug%[email protected];rinstance=0051b76a880b6325;transport=TCP>;expires=3600;received="sip:1.2.3.4:58889;transport=TCP".
>>>>>>>>>>>> Server: OpenSIPS (1.6.1-tls (x86_64/linux)).
>>>>>>>>>>>> Content-Length: 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Invites are also similar just with the From header being set - so I
>>>>>>>>>>>> assume if we can fix this, then I can apply the same type of fix to
>>>>>>>>>>>> register requests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Either I need to be able to reject the above messages with invalid
>>>>>>>>>>>> formatted headers, or I need t rewrite things (which I'm not always
>>>>>>>>>>>> comfortable doing within opensips)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I appreciate the assistance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
>

_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to