RE: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
On 23 Jul 2004 at 10:57, Dr. Rich Murphey wrote: > Perhaps it's not a question of elegant code but rather quality and > maintainability. Once code goes in, those are real issues that take time > and effort. So your saying that a working solution is less valuable in the long run then the extra amount of effort and ability it would take to use it? Granted quality of code _IS_ important, but sometimes getting something to work so that others may join the project is more so. > I've seen technical integrity mistaken for dictatorship many times, and in > the end the users suffer if it is replaced by political solutions. Believe > me, you would be far worse off if such decisions were in the hands of a > populist rather than an software architect. I actually happen to be both, the second in a professional capacity. So I understand that in some cases technical integrity has a hand in things, but when people do not know it is the case and have no other reason explained to them then "so and so didn't want it added" it leaves the mind without any other option but to conclude dictatorship is the problem/reason; The project is in of itself a community and I have found it best to explian at least a little; Even Linus did it. > As an open source project one has every opportunity to change the code, but > in submitting code, one must be able to take responsibility for long term > issues. True that, but in taking the responsibility you say you will do your best to finish the end goal and provide working functionality; If functionality is lacking for such a large part of the world community how does one conclude the objective has been achieved? > Please guys, focus on improving patches rather than asking the maintainers > to lower standards. Not lower, Higher. As I said Linus Himself explained his choices and asked for comments and ideas, why shouldn't these people do the same? Besides if we know why, threads like this never get formed and thus time is spent on the real problems at hand. > Regards, > Rich > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:50 PM > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS > > > > Yes I have. > > > > The main problem I have is that if a patch can make things > > working in the short terms then why not add it? If a more > > elegant solution is found weeks later that patch can simply > > be taken out, either way the problem is solved,and people > > are happy since the software 'just works' while digium gains > > a larger customer base since the hardware now works as > > expected and more people can then buy the hardware and use it. > > > > I'm not even in the UK so that patch will not even help me at > > all, but I still think it a good idea; That has to say something. > > > > > > On 22 Jul 2004 at 11:51, Richard Lyman wrote: > > > > > it's obvious you never attempted to get a patch in the linux > > > kernel source! someone HAS to 'govern' the code, else it's just > > > a pile of spagetti. > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > The true nature of open source is defined as the source > > being available and open. Limiting the included code for the > > central offering based on someone's will because he thinks it > > will mean he can sell more hardware if he does not do so is > > not open source, its dictatorship. I find it very sad that > > based on my understanding asterisk will not include code that > > will help many people just because one person feels that to > > do so would hurt his companies profit margins, when the code > > is no doubt already available > > > > somewhere else or is needed by someone. > > > > > > > > In the time I have watched this list even before I > > started posting I have seen much of this; Keep up the > > dictatorship of the central code repository and I guarantee > > you a branch of the source code will form within the next 3-6 > > months. Not by me since I do not have the requisite > > understanding, but I believe it important to say here that if > > the open source community does not like the way digium or > > 'Mark' is doing things it will simply make them unnecessary > > for the project to go forward by cutting them out of > > the > > > > loop. And that perfectly acceptable from a legal > > standpoint since asterisk is after all GP
Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
So where is the patch set? On 23 Jul 2004 at 15:29, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > Hi folks, >First, many thanks to the good people who developed this patch set. > I now get Caller ID on my home line, so I do have a use for the > Pissy that was keeping my door open (and one of its PCI slots). > I have an X100P and S100U and that's it for zaptel devices so > this hack is fine by me. Progress tone/Busy Detection/Call Cleardown > supervision is a "bridge too far", but at least I can process based > on who's calling at last; A GOOD THING. Mother-in-Law processing is Go. > > As I understand it, the patch includes a low-level hack to the kernel > driver to add the ring buffer. Look at the bugnotes - the concern seems > to be that this may lead to fragility in the core code and make it > harder > to maintain for other zaptel devices. Fair enough - I don't use any of > the > other kinds of zaptel devices, so I'm unfamiliar with the code. > > However, this one's going to be in my standard "download, patch, build" > cycle from now one unless someone goes out of their way to break it. > > We have contribs in Asterisk, so is it time to get contribs in Zaptel > as well? > > all the best, >Lawrence > > On 23 Jul 2004, at 14:12, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > > > > It's just Good Karma to support Digium. > > > > Frankly though, I don't think ANYONE should buy these cards, clone or > > no -- Get > > the TDMxx series. > Why? > Does progress tone/call supervision/CLI work in the UK for the TDM4xx? > (at least now CLI works with the X100P :). > > In my experience, ISDN works very well with Junghanns's excellent > chan_capi > (and the AVM passive cards are cheaper) so if a couple of lines is all > you need, ... > > > -- > > Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk > > Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. > > The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to > Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without > permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or > change any contractual relationship. > > ___ > Asterisk-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
RE: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
> Rich Adamson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Its also fairly common knowledge the x100p was not designed/built by > > digium, but rather they choose to use an existing modem card that had > > the chipsets (etc) that could be used for entry-level systems at a > > very low cost, and those cards _were_ being manufactured in hugh > > volumes making the cost per card very reasonable. (Compare that > > cost to what you'd pay Nortel for the equivalent as one example.) > > Its certainly not difficult to understand the economics of that and > > its certain that most understand modem sales (worldwide) have > > dropped very significantly. That suggests the x100p-type (and the > > follow on x101p) cards will become more extinct over the next > > months/years. > > > The X100P cards seem to fall into two camps: "genuine Digium" or > "clones". That would seem to contradict your statement, although I > believe that you are correct. Perhaps someone could clarify this for > future reference. Think the digium vs clone thing has been beat to death over the last eight months or so. In support of the objective, I stuck with the genuine directly from digium. Regardless of the source, I wish I could contribute more in the area of tweeking the code associated with the various pstn interfaces (including echo cancellation) but my linux & C programming skills are very sub-elementary at best. Given my 20+ years as a technical telco engineer (including transmission engineering, central office engineering, etc), I understand the telephony piece vary well, have access to some central offices, but don't have a clue how to apply those skills to debug C code in linux. If someone could jump-start those skills in the form on helping me understand how to monitor variable values in the linux environment, etc, I think I could contribute towards improvemnet in some of these areas. I've been using Visual Studio for a fair number of windows projects, and can write/debug code in that environment. Can someone point me to an article or provide maybe a valid example of how one would montior the zaptel.c variable "chan->echolastupdate" (as an example only)? I'm assuming I'd have to insert some sort of printf statement and direct that output to my telnet session, but I don't have a clue how to do that. Or, maybe that's the wrong approach and I'm should use the linux debugger (never used it) instead. Can someone help me as a clueless beginner with an old Comp Sci degree? (pretty please) Rich ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
correct impedance setting is in the code for the UK for the new fxo module. check the cvs log or the source. On Fri, 2004-07-23 at 16:50, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > Hi again, Andrew, folks, > Yup - the X100P (or clone) is a PSTN card for use with single lines. > Fine device, and WAY cheaper than a TDM4xx with a single populated > FXO module (TDM01B), at least in the UK. > > I assumed that you weren't seriously suggesting a TDM01B for a > single analogue line (if they weren't back-ordered). Hence I > guessed that the use case is "a few lines". > > AFAICT, the TDM4xx modules don't do busy detection or call > supervision or CLI or have settings for correct impedance > right now for use in the UK - all we have is the *potential* > to get these working sometime in the *future*. > > If one does need a couple of lines, then one may have a choice > - PSTN access or ISDN access. > > In civilised countries (i.e. not here) it's cheaper to get a > BRI than it is to get two analogue lines. Thus, if one needs > more than one analogue line, it may be cheaper to go for a > BRI from your Comms Provider. > > If you DO go for a BRI (or a pair of BRIs) the card(s) WILL > be cheaper (and, most important, it works, out of the box). > > No grief with whether or not CLI works - it does now. > Likewise, no grief about progress/call supervision - it > works over here right now. > > To sum up, if the use case is more than one line and you don't live > in the U.S of A., then don't forget ISDN - it has several advantages > (not least of which is that we don't do SPIDs over here). > > If the use case is a single analogue line, then the price of an > under-populated TDM4xx puts it outside the budget for most people > - it's just too expensive at current UK reseller prices. > > all the best, >Lawrence > > On 23 Jul 2004, at 15:50, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: > > On Friday 23 July 2004 10:29, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > >>> Frankly though, I don't think ANYONE should buy these cards, clone or > >>> no -- Get > >>> the TDMxx series. > > > >> Why? > >> Does progress tone/call supervision/CLI work in the UK for the TDM4xx? > >> (at least now CLI works with the X100P :). > > > > The TDM card is a true Digium product, not an OEM card resold by > > Digium. IIRC > > the FXO module is far higher quality too. > > > >> In my experience, ISDN works very well with Junghanns's excellent > >> chan_capi > >> (and the AVM passive cards are cheaper) so if a couple of lines is all > >> you need, ... > > > > The X101P doesn't support ISDN. I thought we were talking PSTN here > > not ISDN? > > > > -A. > > ___ > > Asterisk-Dev mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
As one of the core developers of the OpenH323 project, I agree with this view. Sometimes, forcibly integrating user contributed patches at any cost creates more problems than it's solves. It's not always a matter of increasing functionality at any cost - in the long term, an Open Source project is more about mantainability and ease of understanding than simply increasing functionality. Sometimes, it is better to wait until someone who *really* understands the code is able to create a patch that is fully integrated with the existing code, rather than just hacking in a change to solve a problem. I know that OpenH323 is a dirty word as far as some of the Asterisk developers are concerned, but this problem is common to both projects. Good patches are hard to find :) Craig On Fri, 23 Jul 2004 10:57:26 -0500 "Dr. Rich Murphey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps it's not a question of elegant code but rather quality and > maintainability. Once code goes in, those are real issues that take time > and effort. > > I've seen technical integrity mistaken for dictatorship many times, and in > the end the users suffer if it is replaced by political solutions. Believe > me, you would be far worse off if such decisions were in the hands of a > populist rather than an software architect. > > As an open source project one has every opportunity to change the code, but > in submitting code, one must be able to take responsibility for long term > issues. > > Please guys, focus on improving patches rather than asking the maintainers > to lower standards. > > Regards, > Rich --- Craig Southeren [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +61 243654666 ICQ: #86852844 Fax:+61 243673140 MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: +61 417231046 Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Post Increment - Consulting & Serviceshttp://www.postincrement.com Vox Gratia - The Open Source VoIP portal http://www.voxgratia.org Raving Of A Strange Mind - the VoIP blog http://www.southeren.com/blog ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
RE: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
Perhaps it's not a question of elegant code but rather quality and maintainability. Once code goes in, those are real issues that take time and effort. I've seen technical integrity mistaken for dictatorship many times, and in the end the users suffer if it is replaced by political solutions. Believe me, you would be far worse off if such decisions were in the hands of a populist rather than an software architect. As an open source project one has every opportunity to change the code, but in submitting code, one must be able to take responsibility for long term issues. Please guys, focus on improving patches rather than asking the maintainers to lower standards. Regards, Rich > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2004 4:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS > > Yes I have. > > The main problem I have is that if a patch can make things > working in the short terms then why not add it? If a more > elegant solution is found weeks later that patch can simply > be taken out, either way the problem is solved,and people > are happy since the software 'just works' while digium gains > a larger customer base since the hardware now works as > expected and more people can then buy the hardware and use it. > > I'm not even in the UK so that patch will not even help me at > all, but I still think it a good idea; That has to say something. > > > On 22 Jul 2004 at 11:51, Richard Lyman wrote: > > > it's obvious you never attempted to get a patch in the linux > > kernel source! someone HAS to 'govern' the code, else it's just > > a pile of spagetti. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > The true nature of open source is defined as the source > being available and open. Limiting the included code for the > central offering based on someone's will because he thinks it > will mean he can sell more hardware if he does not do so is > not open source, its dictatorship. I find it very sad that > based on my understanding asterisk will not include code that > will help many people just because one person feels that to > do so would hurt his companies profit margins, when the code > is no doubt already available > > > somewhere else or is needed by someone. > > > > > > In the time I have watched this list even before I > started posting I have seen much of this; Keep up the > dictatorship of the central code repository and I guarantee > you a branch of the source code will form within the next 3-6 > months. Not by me since I do not have the requisite > understanding, but I believe it important to say here that if > the open source community does not like the way digium or > 'Mark' is doing things it will simply make them unnecessary > for the project to go forward by cutting them out of > the > > > loop. And that perfectly acceptable from a legal > standpoint since asterisk is after all GPL. > > > > > > I don't mean to be cruel or annoying, I'm stating facts > as I see them. If I am wrong or ignorant by all means tell > me, but if it looks like this to me, how do you think it > looks to the thousands of other people ghosting around this > project and watching in the shadows as I once did? > > > > > > Just a though. > > > > > > On 22 Jul 2004 at 14:43, Chris Stenton wrote: > > > > > > > > >>Mark does not like the history buffer method used. I > think code will be > > >>included for the the fxo module at some point but not for > the X100P. > > >> > > >>Chris. > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > Asterisk-Dev mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > > > > > > > > ___ > > Asterisk-Dev mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > > > > > > ___ > Asterisk-Dev mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: >http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev > > ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
Hi again, Andrew, folks, Yup - the X100P (or clone) is a PSTN card for use with single lines. Fine device, and WAY cheaper than a TDM4xx with a single populated FXO module (TDM01B), at least in the UK. I assumed that you weren't seriously suggesting a TDM01B for a single analogue line (if they weren't back-ordered). Hence I guessed that the use case is "a few lines". AFAICT, the TDM4xx modules don't do busy detection or call supervision or CLI or have settings for correct impedance right now for use in the UK - all we have is the *potential* to get these working sometime in the *future*. If one does need a couple of lines, then one may have a choice - PSTN access or ISDN access. In civilised countries (i.e. not here) it's cheaper to get a BRI than it is to get two analogue lines. Thus, if one needs more than one analogue line, it may be cheaper to go for a BRI from your Comms Provider. If you DO go for a BRI (or a pair of BRIs) the card(s) WILL be cheaper (and, most important, it works, out of the box). No grief with whether or not CLI works - it does now. Likewise, no grief about progress/call supervision - it works over here right now. To sum up, if the use case is more than one line and you don't live in the U.S of A., then don't forget ISDN - it has several advantages (not least of which is that we don't do SPIDs over here). If the use case is a single analogue line, then the price of an under-populated TDM4xx puts it outside the budget for most people - it's just too expensive at current UK reseller prices. all the best, Lawrence On 23 Jul 2004, at 15:50, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: On Friday 23 July 2004 10:29, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: Frankly though, I don't think ANYONE should buy these cards, clone or no -- Get the TDMxx series. Why? Does progress tone/call supervision/CLI work in the UK for the TDM4xx? (at least now CLI works with the X100P :). The TDM card is a true Digium product, not an OEM card resold by Digium. IIRC the FXO module is far higher quality too. In my experience, ISDN works very well with Junghanns's excellent chan_capi (and the AVM passive cards are cheaper) so if a couple of lines is all you need, ... The X101P doesn't support ISDN. I thought we were talking PSTN here not ISDN? -A. ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship. ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
On Friday 23 July 2004 10:29, Conroy, Lawrence (SMTP) wrote: > > Frankly though, I don't think ANYONE should buy these cards, clone or > > no -- Get > > the TDMxx series. > Why? > Does progress tone/call supervision/CLI work in the UK for the TDM4xx? > (at least now CLI works with the X100P :). The TDM card is a true Digium product, not an OEM card resold by Digium. IIRC the FXO module is far higher quality too. > In my experience, ISDN works very well with Junghanns's excellent > chan_capi > (and the AVM passive cards are cheaper) so if a couple of lines is all > you need, ... The X101P doesn't support ISDN. I thought we were talking PSTN here not ISDN? -A. ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
Re: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
Hi folks, First, many thanks to the good people who developed this patch set. I now get Caller ID on my home line, so I do have a use for the Pissy that was keeping my door open (and one of its PCI slots). I have an X100P and S100U and that's it for zaptel devices so this hack is fine by me. Progress tone/Busy Detection/Call Cleardown supervision is a "bridge too far", but at least I can process based on who's calling at last; A GOOD THING. Mother-in-Law processing is Go. As I understand it, the patch includes a low-level hack to the kernel driver to add the ring buffer. Look at the bugnotes - the concern seems to be that this may lead to fragility in the core code and make it harder to maintain for other zaptel devices. Fair enough - I don't use any of the other kinds of zaptel devices, so I'm unfamiliar with the code. However, this one's going to be in my standard "download, patch, build" cycle from now one unless someone goes out of their way to break it. We have contribs in Asterisk, so is it time to get contribs in Zaptel as well? all the best, Lawrence On 23 Jul 2004, at 14:12, Andrew Kohlsmith wrote: It's just Good Karma to support Digium. Frankly though, I don't think ANYONE should buy these cards, clone or no -- Get the TDMxx series. Why? Does progress tone/call supervision/CLI work in the UK for the TDM4xx? (at least now CLI works with the X100P :). In my experience, ISDN works very well with Junghanns's excellent chan_capi (and the AVM passive cards are cheaper) so if a couple of lines is all you need, ... -- Visit our website at www.roke.co.uk Roke Manor Research Ltd, Roke Manor, Romsey, Hampshire SO51 0ZN, UK. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments is confidential to Roke Manor Research Ltd and must not be passed to any third party without permission. This communication is for information only and shall not create or change any contractual relationship. ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
RE: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
American and UK phone systems use a different system, don't they? On 22 Jul 2004 at 1:46, Kevin Walsh wrote: > Vassilis Konstantinou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > It appears that the new channels/chan_zap.c > > has quite a few new lines of code and makes the original UK Caller ID > > patch (second patch for the chan_zap file) to fail. > > > > I tried to find my way through the code but it is getting a bit too > > complicated to locate all changes. Most probably somebody who is familiar > > with the code can do this a bit more quickly so can a kind soul out there, > > update the UK patch to match the new additions? > > > I've attached a cvs diff against my chan_zap.c, which may help. > > -- >_/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ > _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h > _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ > ___ Asterisk-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-dev
RE: [Asterisk-Dev] UK Caller ID patch and new CVS
Vassilis Konstantinou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > It appears that the new channels/chan_zap.c > has quite a few new lines of code and makes the original UK Caller ID > patch (second patch for the chan_zap file) to fail. > > I tried to find my way through the code but it is getting a bit too > complicated to locate all changes. Most probably somebody who is familiar > with the code can do this a bit more quickly so can a kind soul out there, > update the UK patch to match the new additions? > I've attached a cvs diff against my chan_zap.c, which may help. -- _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/ _/_/_/_/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/_/[EMAIL PROTECTED] _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ _/_/ chan_zap.patch Description: Binary data
