Re: [Serusers] Questions on using ser.cfg version 0.9.0 for callforward/busy/noanswer

Charles, One problem I see is that the value for the forwarded number is not a valid SIP URI. The values stored in the usr_preferences table must look like this: sip:4075551212@mycompany.com As for you question about the "-", "dom", and "int" avp lines, these are not database related. Instead this is a bit of a hack. I use these three values as AVPs which get referenced in other route blocks. The reason I call this a hack is that it would be better to move this kind of validation to a custom C module. Anyhow, the whole point of that route block is to validate the destination number that the user is trying to have forwarded to. For example, the user should not be allowed to forward to 911 or an international number (unless they are entitled to international dialing). One more note: That ser.cfg that you're referencing is very unwieldy. I've since restructured the entire thing for simplicity reasons. This ser.cfg follows the very simple concepts shown in the default ser.cfg example. I feel it is much better to follow a per-method-type approach. For example in the main route block I now have: if (method=="BYE") { route(1); # BYE message handler } else if (method=="ACK") { route(2); # ACK message handler } else .... I'm hoping to post my entire reworked ser.cfg to the mailing list this week and seek comments and feedback on establishing "best coding practices" for ser because as far as I know this hasn't been addressed. My hopes are that the next ser.cfg I post, would at a minimum, get the ball rolling on defining how best to code ser.cfg logic. Regards, Paul On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 12:23:32 +0800, Charles Wang <lazy.charles(a)gmail.com> wrote: _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers