Oops I got that a bit mixed up. I meant to say that when party A put party B on
hold, the moh class used should be party A's moh. Essentially the moh class
used should be what's defined for the person putting the OTHER party on hold.
Doug.
-Original Message-
From: Douglas Garstang
- Douglas Garstang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops I got that a bit mixed up. I meant to say that when party A put
party B on hold, the moh class used should be party A's moh.
Essentially the moh class used should be what's defined for the person
putting the OTHER party on hold.
Doug.
:
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] MOH in 1.4 - Still Broken?
- Douglas Garstang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oops I got that a bit mixed up. I meant to say that when party A put
party B on hold, the moh class used should be party A's moh.
Essentially
