15 Nov
2004
15 Nov
'04
7:31 p.m.
Hi,
Thanks for you inputs.
It's working fine now using min_expires.
Regards,
Suvendu.
--- Marian Dumitru <marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro>
wrote:
Hi Girish,
Maybe my sentence was a little too ambiguous :-).
Just to rephrase:
"when you use append_hf() the modification will be
reflected on the
message only when forwarded".
If you try your approach, it will be a discrepancy
between what SER and
the phones think the expire value is. SER will
consider the one received
in the original req. (it will ignore the new value
forced from script
via append_hf() ) and the client will consider the
value received in
reply ( the one forced from script via
append_to_reply() ).
You can easily check this via "serctl ul show" and
to see if the expire
time is the one you force from script.
Best regards,
Marian
Girish wrote:
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your life partner online
Go to: http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony
Hello,
--- Marian Dumitru
<marian.dumitru(a)voice-sistem.ro> wrote:
>when you use append_hf() the modification will not
reflect on the
>message only when forwarded. So even if you
add
the Expired hdr, it will
I think you meant 'will reflect'. right?
Here we use append_hf and append_to_reply to set
the expires timeout with our
softphone. And
haven't noticed any problem so far. May be
append_to_reply is doing the trick.
>More appropriate is to use "min_expires" registrar
parameter.
Thanks for this info. I did not know about this.
--
Voice Sistem
http://www.voice-sistem.ro
Best regards,
Marian
Best Regards,
=====
Girish Gopinath <gr_sh2003(a)yahoo.com>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com