hello friends,
we have subscription to ser through serctl to ser
and we can autheticate to the ser by freeradius server
where we give username and password in users file of
radius
so what is the difference between them and how can we
interrealte b/w this two.
if i want to have the subscription authentication does
i need to use the sql authentication?
with regards
ser die hard
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
I have done what I believe is a simple install and followed all of the
configuration instructions to the letter. I must have missed something as I
cannot get the login page to function at all. I get a 404 error on login
every time. I am new to php and am a little green in this type of code. I
get the following error in the url line upon login. Can someone please help?
http://xx.xx.xx.xx/CDRTool/<?php%20print%20$this->url()?>
Hello,
I installed ser + serweb. Everything works execept for the e-mails.
When a new user is created, the new user info appears on the "pending"
mysql table. But the e-mail is not sent.
Also serweb does not give any error message. Or follow up page. Just a
blank page after the registration.
(the same thing happens when you ask for a password reminder)
my php.ini has:
sendmail_path = /usr/sbin/sendmail -t -i
and the unix box sends mail ok with pine
it has slackware 9, apache_1.3.31 and php-4.3.8
Any ideas of what could be wrong ?
Or how to get more debugging data ?
Thanks a lot,
Jaime Garcia
Many thanks Daniel!
This was very easy to implement, so just some encouragement for anyone
else who's struggling with msilo or message routing, once you get your
head around it, it's fine.
Another thing to check off !
D
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:daniel@iptel.org]
Sent: 21 July 2004 18:02
To: Dave Bath
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Serweb and messaging - have i mixed up my logic!
Hello,
it seems that you have configured msilo to notice the sender that the
destination is offline. If the contact used by serweb points to server
itself (I guess is daemon@), then there will be a loop that will get
accounted but msilo will ignore messages coming from/going to registrar
address (so you get: MESSAGING: offline message NOT stored). You should
have some specific processing logic for these special addresses (if uri
== daemon@ || sip_registrar@ => drop) in your config file.
Daniel
On 7/21/2004 6:45 PM, Dave Bath wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> Think I'm finally making some progress with msilo and serweb
> messaging. Things appear to work, but when I look in the logs I see
> some interesting things. The relevant bits of code are shown at the
> bottom.
>
> Basically what I see from the logs is that when a UA is ONLINE, but
> Doesn't support messaging, I correctly see:
>
> (i.e the failure_route[1] seems to pick it up).
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20927]: MESSAGING: Destination UA
> does not support MESSAGE requests. Stored.
>
> In the log file. However, it is immediately followed by: (161.30.94.68
> is sip.dev.inmarsat.com - its not in DNS yet)
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20927]: ACC: transaction answered:
> method=MESSAGE, i-uri=sip:admin@161.30.94.68,
> o-uri=sip:admin@81.86.136.86:5060, call_id=397ffff9-20938(a)127.0.0.1,
>
from=sip:test1@sip.dev.inmarsat.com;tag=533cb9e91f4b999cf76861cbb9ed54ed
-c64b,
> code=202
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: MESSAGE to
> offline user received -> storing using MSILO
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: offline message
> NOT stored
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: ACC: transaction answered:
> method=MESSAGE, i-uri=sip:daemon@sip.dev.inmarsat.com,
> o-uri=sip:daemon@sip.dev.inmarsat.com,
> call_id=397ffff7-20927(a)161.30.94.68,
>
from=sip:sip_registrar@161.30.94.68;tag=533cb9e91f4b999cf76861cbb9ed54ed
-d172,
> code=503
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: MESSAGE to
> offline user received -> storing using MSILO
>
> i.e. then something happens which makes Ser process it again as a
> message to an offline user. I don't understand this. Is it something
> to do with the way that serweb sends messages? Perhaps something
> related to this sip:daemon@... address? Does Ser try and send it
> internally? And is my logic then confused by the internal ACK's?
>
> Any help would be very very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Dave
>
> ----------------- BEGIN CODE SNIPPETS
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
> if (!lookup("location")) { # BEGIN if not in location database
>
> # Handle messages
>
> if (method=="MESSAGE") {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: MESSAGE to offline user received -> storing using
> MSILO\n");
>
> route(2);
>
> break;
>
> <snip>
>
> .....
>
> </snip>
>
> # END "if not in location database"
>
> }
>
> else
>
> { # BEGIN "user is in location database"
>
> # Set flag for accounting missed calls. If no-answer or other
>
> # network error will be logged from here
>
> setflag(3);
>
> # Check if UA supports messaging protocol before
>
> # forward to user's current destination
>
> t_on_failure("1");
>
> t_relay();
>
> break;
>
> # END "user is in location database"
>
> };
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> failure_route[1] {
>
> # forwarding failed -- check if the request was a MESSAGE
>
> if (!method=="MESSAGE")
>
> {
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> # we have changed the R-URI with the contact address -- ignore it now
>
> if (m_store("1"))
>
> {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: Destination UA does not support MESSAGE requests.
> Stored.\n");
>
> t_reply("202", "Accepted for delivery");
>
> break;
>
> }
>
> else
>
> {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: WARNING! MESSAGE request unsupported, but not
> stored!\n");
>
> t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> }
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> route[2] {
>
> # Route for handling message transmission using msilo. Store a message
> locally if a UA
>
> # is offline, but supports messaging protocol.
>
> if (!t_newtran()) {
>
> sl_reply_error();
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> if (m_store("0")) {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: offline message stored\n");
>
> t_reply("202", "Accepted for Later Delivery");
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: offline message NOT stored\n");
>
> t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>
> break;
>
> }
>
> /-------------------------------------/
>
> /Dave Bath/
>
> /dave(a)fuuz.com <mailto:dave@fuuz.com>/
>
> /www.fuuz.com <http://www.fuuz.com>/
>
> /07736 232085/
>
> NOTE: The information contained in this email is intended for the
> named recipients only, it may be privileged and confidential. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you must not copy distribute or take
> any action in reliance upon it. No warranties or assurances are made
> in relation to the safety and content of this email and any
> attachments. No liability is accepted for any consequences arising
from it
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
It is my understanding that the fr_timer and fr_inv_timer in the
transaction module govern the duration timer for non-INVITE
provisional-INVITE transactions and the time to wait for an
INVITE to be ACK'd.
Some users of our system have asked if we can set on a per user
bases the number of rings before SER assumes the call will be
unanswered and takes subsequent action, like sending the call to
voicemail.
I didn't see anything that suggested this was possible. Is it possible?
Thanks,Steve
--
ISC Network Engineering
The University of Pennsylvania
3401 Walnut Street, Suite 221A
Philadelphia, PA 19104
voice: 215-573-8396
215-746-7903
fax: 215-898-9348
sip:blairs@upenn.edu
Many thanks Daniel,
That is about where I had finally decided the problem must be - when
serweb tried to send the message (as you say, from daemon@) the same
processing I was using to work out if the use was offline was saying
that daemon was offline.. which is of course correct - daemon will never
be online. As this is normal and correct, I will try and figure out
some code to put before the offline message storage which checks if the
message came from daemon@ and ignore it.
Many thanks again, and I will let you know :-)
D
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel-Constantin Mierla [mailto:daniel@iptel.org]
Sent: 21 July 2004 18:02
To: Dave Bath
Cc: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: Re: [Serusers] Serweb and messaging - have i mixed up my logic!
Hello,
it seems that you have configured msilo to notice the sender that the
destination is offline. If the contact used by serweb points to server
itself (I guess is daemon@), then there will be a loop that will get
accounted but msilo will ignore messages coming from/going to registrar
address (so you get: MESSAGING: offline message NOT stored). You should
have some specific processing logic for these special addresses (if uri
== daemon@ || sip_registrar@ => drop) in your config file.
Daniel
On 7/21/2004 6:45 PM, Dave Bath wrote:
> Hey list,
>
> Think I'm finally making some progress with msilo and serweb
> messaging. Things appear to work, but when I look in the logs I see
> some interesting things. The relevant bits of code are shown at the
> bottom.
>
> Basically what I see from the logs is that when a UA is ONLINE, but
> Doesn't support messaging, I correctly see:
>
> (i.e the failure_route[1] seems to pick it up).
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20927]: MESSAGING: Destination UA
> does not support MESSAGE requests. Stored.
>
> In the log file. However, it is immediately followed by: (161.30.94.68
> is sip.dev.inmarsat.com - its not in DNS yet)
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20927]: ACC: transaction answered:
> method=MESSAGE, i-uri=sip:admin@161.30.94.68,
> o-uri=sip:admin@81.86.136.86:5060, call_id=397ffff9-20938(a)127.0.0.1,
>
from=sip:test1@sip.dev.inmarsat.com;tag=533cb9e91f4b999cf76861cbb9ed54ed
-c64b,
> code=202
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: MESSAGE to
> offline user received -> storing using MSILO
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: offline message
> NOT stored
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: ACC: transaction answered:
> method=MESSAGE, i-uri=sip:daemon@sip.dev.inmarsat.com,
> o-uri=sip:daemon@sip.dev.inmarsat.com,
> call_id=397ffff7-20927(a)161.30.94.68,
>
from=sip:sip_registrar@161.30.94.68;tag=533cb9e91f4b999cf76861cbb9ed54ed
-d172,
> code=503
>
> Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: MESSAGE to
> offline user received -> storing using MSILO
>
> i.e. then something happens which makes Ser process it again as a
> message to an offline user. I don't understand this. Is it something
> to do with the way that serweb sends messages? Perhaps something
> related to this sip:daemon@... address? Does Ser try and send it
> internally? And is my logic then confused by the internal ACK's?
>
> Any help would be very very much appreciated.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Dave
>
> ----------------- BEGIN CODE SNIPPETS
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
>
> if (!lookup("location")) { # BEGIN if not in location database
>
> # Handle messages
>
> if (method=="MESSAGE") {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: MESSAGE to offline user received -> storing using
> MSILO\n");
>
> route(2);
>
> break;
>
> <snip>
>
> .....
>
> </snip>
>
> # END "if not in location database"
>
> }
>
> else
>
> { # BEGIN "user is in location database"
>
> # Set flag for accounting missed calls. If no-answer or other
>
> # network error will be logged from here
>
> setflag(3);
>
> # Check if UA supports messaging protocol before
>
> # forward to user's current destination
>
> t_on_failure("1");
>
> t_relay();
>
> break;
>
> # END "user is in location database"
>
> };
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> failure_route[1] {
>
> # forwarding failed -- check if the request was a MESSAGE
>
> if (!method=="MESSAGE")
>
> {
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> # we have changed the R-URI with the contact address -- ignore it now
>
> if (m_store("1"))
>
> {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: Destination UA does not support MESSAGE requests.
> Stored.\n");
>
> t_reply("202", "Accepted for delivery");
>
> break;
>
> }
>
> else
>
> {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: WARNING! MESSAGE request unsupported, but not
> stored!\n");
>
> t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> }
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> route[2] {
>
> # Route for handling message transmission using msilo. Store a message
> locally if a UA
>
> # is offline, but supports messaging protocol.
>
> if (!t_newtran()) {
>
> sl_reply_error();
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> if (m_store("0")) {
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: offline message stored\n");
>
> t_reply("202", "Accepted for Later Delivery");
>
> break;
>
> };
>
> log(1, "MESSAGING: offline message NOT stored\n");
>
> t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
>
> break;
>
> }
>
> /-------------------------------------/
>
> /Dave Bath/
>
> /dave(a)fuuz.com <mailto:dave@fuuz.com>/
>
> /www.fuuz.com <http://www.fuuz.com>/
>
> /07736 232085/
>
> NOTE: The information contained in this email is intended for the
> named recipients only, it may be privileged and confidential. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you must not copy distribute or take
> any action in reliance upon it. No warranties or assurances are made
> in relation to the safety and content of this email and any
> attachments. No liability is accepted for any consequences arising
from it
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>
>_______________________________________________
>Serusers mailing list
>serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
>http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers
>
>
Hey list,
Think I'm finally making some progress with msilo and serweb messaging.
Things appear to work, but when I look in the logs I see some
interesting things. The relevant bits of code are shown at the bottom.
Basically what I see from the logs is that when a UA is ONLINE, but
Doesn't support messaging, I correctly see:
(i.e the failure_route[1] seems to pick it up).
Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20927]: MESSAGING: Destination UA does
not support MESSAGE requests. Stored.
In the log file. However, it is immediately followed by:
(161.30.94.68 is sip.dev.inmarsat.com - its not in DNS yet)
Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20927]: ACC: transaction answered:
method=MESSAGE, i-uri=sip:admin@161.30.94.68,
o-uri=sip:admin@81.86.136.86:5060, call_id=397ffff9-20938(a)127.0.0.1,
from=sip:test1@sip.dev.inmarsat.com;tag=533cb9e91f4b999cf76861cbb9ed54ed
-c64b, code=202
Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: MESSAGE to offline
user received -> storing using MSILO
Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: offline message NOT
stored
Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: ACC: transaction answered:
method=MESSAGE, i-uri=sip:daemon@sip.dev.inmarsat.com,
o-uri=sip:daemon@sip.dev.inmarsat.com,
call_id=397ffff7-20927(a)161.30.94.68,
from=sip:sip_registrar@161.30.94.68;tag=533cb9e91f4b999cf76861cbb9ed54ed
-d172, code=503
Jul 21 16:55:03 sip /usr/sbin/ser[20924]: MESSAGING: MESSAGE to offline
user received -> storing using MSILO
i.e. then something happens which makes Ser process it again as a
message to an offline user. I don't understand this. Is it something
to do with the way that serweb sends messages? Perhaps something
related to this sip:daemon@... address? Does Ser try and send it
internally? And is my logic then confused by the internal ACK's?
Any help would be very very much appreciated.
Thanks again,
Dave
----------------- BEGIN CODE SNIPPETS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
if (!lookup("location")) { # BEGIN if not in location
database
# Handle messages
if (method=="MESSAGE") {
log(1, "MESSAGING: MESSAGE to offline user received
-> storing using MSILO\n");
route(2);
break;
<snip>
.....
</snip>
# END "if not in location database"
}
else
{ # BEGIN "user is in location database"
# Set flag for accounting missed calls. If no-answer
or other
# network error will be logged from here
setflag(3);
# Check if UA supports messaging protocol before
# forward to user's current destination
t_on_failure("1");
t_relay();
break;
# END "user is in location database"
};
---------------------------------------------------
failure_route[1] {
# forwarding failed -- check if the request was a MESSAGE
if (!method=="MESSAGE")
{
break;
};
# we have changed the R-URI with the contact address -- ignore
it now
if (m_store("1"))
{
log(1, "MESSAGING: Destination UA does not support
MESSAGE requests. Stored.\n");
t_reply("202", "Accepted for delivery");
break;
}
else
{
log(1, "MESSAGING: WARNING! MESSAGE request unsupported,
but not stored!\n");
t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
break;
};
}
---------------------------------------------------
route[2] {
# Route for handling message transmission using msilo. Store a
message locally if a UA
# is offline, but supports messaging protocol.
if (!t_newtran()) {
sl_reply_error();
break;
};
if (m_store("0")) {
log(1, "MESSAGING: offline message stored\n");
t_reply("202", "Accepted for Later Delivery");
break;
};
log(1, "MESSAGING: offline message NOT stored\n");
t_reply("503", "Service Unavailable");
break;
}
-------------------------------------
Dave Bath
dave(a)fuuz.com
www.fuuz.com
07736 232085
NOTE: The information contained in this email is intended for the named
recipients only, it may be privileged and confidential. If you are not
the intended recipient, you must not copy distribute or take any action
in reliance upon it. No warranties or assurances are made in relation to
the safety and content of this email and any attachments. No liability
is accepted for any consequences arising from it
See inline
________________________________
From: serusers-bounces(a)iptel.org [mailto:serusers-bounces@lists.iptel.org] On
Behalf Of ser
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 12:07 PM
To: serusers(a)lists.iptel.org
Subject: [Serusers] Adding services - help needed
I need help choosing how to implement different services with SER. I was
thinking to use Asterisk for application services, but i don't know how
the integration could be done.
Here is a list of services. Could you give advice of what would be the
better solution to get this ?
- Let the end user hide his calling number. Is it possible with SER to
choose to hide the calling number and stay anonymous.
You can do it with SER but you will need some development,
but that could be done on sip UA. It kind of standard feature
- Let the end user choose to reject anonymous incoming call. (he could
active/deactivate this function via a keypad combination)
Use exec function and execute external program for each
invite and check if destination user has enabled anon call rejection and
if yes forward call to somewhere (to asterisk on extension with playing
rejection prompt)
- Double call with signaling of incoming second call while already on
communication.
That called 3 way calling, SER can not help you, but it is
in all UA I know, cisco, Sipura, innomedia, etc.. you do not need to do
anything to make it working on ser
- Call transfert : let a user transfer a call to another user
with a keypad combination.
- Call transfer is ONLY UA device feature
For each case, what would be realist ?
Yea.. u can do all this stuff, I use asterisk for promts and menu.. like
user dial *68 (call forwarding always) and it goes tyo asterisk ans
asterisk ask "please enter phone number" user enter phone and asterisk
say thank you and same number to mysql..
Next when user get call from somebody, routing script check if user has
call forwarding enable and if tes tell SER where to route the call
Note that i don't want to use asterisk as the main SIP router. I want to
keep SER at front for routing logic
thanks.
I need help choosing how to implement different services with SER. I was thinking to use Asterisk for application services, but i don't know how the integration could be done.
Here is a list of services. Could you give advice of what would be the better solution to get this ?
- Let the end user hide his calling number. Is it possible with SER to choose to hide the calling number and stay anonymous.
- Let the end user choose to reject anonymous incoming call. (he could active/deactivate this function via a keypad combination)
- Double call with signaling of incoming second call while already on communication.
- Call transfert : let a user transfer a call to another user with a keypad combination.
For each case, what would be realist ?
Note that i don't want to use asterisk as the main SIP router. I want to keep SER at front for routing logic
thanks.
