> exten => _X!,1,Answer()
> exten => _X!,2,Background(pbx-invalid)
Are you sure that your invalid context is correctly written?
I've never heard about this pattern match _X!
As far as i know the wild card is the "."
So your invalid context should be:
[invalid]
exten => _X.,1,Answer()
exten => _X.,2,Background(pbx-invalid)
This may be the cause....
Hope it helps.
On 9/29/06, Brian Candler <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 29, 2006 at 07:49:00PM +0200, Michael Neuhauser wrote:
> The order of include statements is important in 1.2, I don't know if
> this still holds for trunk/1.4. Could you please try to include the
> 'invalid' context as the last one (i.e., AFTER "include => test", not
> before) in both internal and from-sip and then test again?
Yes, this works - both contexts now behave the same.
But what I don't understand is, why it worked in one context but not in the
other, when both just included the same four other contexts in the same
order. Is the context merging non-deterministic? Or is it somehow sensitive
to whether the incoming call came from zaptel or SIP?
Regards,
Brian.
_______________________________________________
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
--
Com os melhores cumprimentos,
Marco Mouta
_______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
