[asterisk-dev] i extension does not match on initial context - bug or not?
dimas at dataart.com
Fri Jan 9 14:10:44 CST 2009
>This (or the 'special =>' suggested below) would be a problem for someone
>who actually needs both normal and the special extensions to match on
>some specific extension.
>Is there actually any such use case?
Why would someone need it?
Just cannot imagine why this may be needed.
Anyway, you still can do:
exten => i,1,GoTo(common-i,1);
special => i,1,GoTo(common-i,1);
special => common-i,1,Noop(will get here for both)
So user could define his own special extensions.
Maybe it worth making special extensions reachable from local contexts only so another box cannot dial into IAX2/xxx/s even if context has it etc. Just thoughts.
From: asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-dev-bounces at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Tzafrir Cohen
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 10:14 PM
To: asterisk-dev at lists.digium.com
Subject: Re: [asterisk-dev] i extension does not match on initial context - bug or not?
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 11:51:26AM +0100, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Dmitry Andrianov <dimas at dataart.com> writes:
> > There is NO functionality for catch-all currently exist. Extension can be alphanumeric so just [0-9*+] is not enough.
> > The closest pattern would be "_." which matches anything at all but the problem with it is that it also matches "special" extensions like h, i, t, s.
> It is a bit sad that the special extensions live in the same namespace
> as normal extensions. The reasons are historical, of course, from when
> Asterisk was mostly concerned with connecting to the PSTN, but these
> days it is becoming a problem.
> I am not sure what to do about it though. A start would be to forbid
> patterns from matching the special extensions, so that you could use
> _h to match h exactly, without matching hangup.
This (or the 'special =>' suggested below) would be a problem for someone
who actually needs both normal and the special extensions to match on
some specific extension.
Is there actually any such use case?
> Another nice thing would be to get rid of some of the reasons why
> people use e.g. h. My favourite would be to always record HANGUPCAUSE
> in the CDR's, without having to use exten =>
What about 'i' ?
What about 't' ?
icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
+972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
http://www.xorcom.com iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
asterisk-dev mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
More information about the asterisk-dev