[cisco-voip] connection v7 dial by name uses transfer extension but says mailbox extension

[Lelio Fulgenzi]

Not sure if it's working by design or not. When it says one thing ("transferring to extension 1001") but does another (uses the transfer extension I set up as 2001) it seems to me someone didn't finish something. ;) 

It works the way I want using the transfer extension, but the fact that it announces the users primary extension isn't what I would like (or expect it to do). 

Having different extensions for mailboxes and setting up translations for the vm port CSS isn't an option right now. It would complicate things quite a bit. 

Thanks for the suggestion though. 

--- 
Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
(519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN) 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
"Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Erick Bergquist" <erickbee at gmail.com> 
To: "Lelio Fulgenzi" <lelio at uoguelph.ca> 
Cc: "cisco-voip voyp list" <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net> 
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2009 10:58:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern 
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] connection v7 dial by name uses transfer extension but says mailbox extension 

Lelio, 

I believe that is working as designed, because the mailbox extension 
is defined on the user basics page and required item which will be 
used by directory handler. The transfer settings are optional and 
default to the voicemail extension setup initially. 

What you could do to get what you need, is something like this... 

If their IP phone extension is 1001, make their VM extension 21001 and 
alternate extension 1001. Then on Call Manager side for the voicemail 
port CSS have a 2XXXX translation pattern that goes to the operator 
extension. 

That would be cleanest way I can think of for what you want to do. You 
could leave it as is, and just remove the phone partitions from the 
voicemail CSS and do a translation to operator for all of them or 
leave some available, but that to me would be harder to keep track of. 

Erick 




On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Lelio Fulgenzi <lelio at uoguelph.ca> wrote: 
> so, i'm fooling around with Unity Connection directory handlers, trying to 
> get around something we do on campus which is mark a person's mailbox as 
> unlisted and publish a different extension for them 
> 
> for examples, doctors on campus want their personal voice mail box number 
> unlisted in the directory and publish the receptionist. 
> 
> so what i've done is change the transfer value from my actual extension to 
> the published extension. it works great. however, because i have "announce 
> extensions" checked on the directory handler, it announces the users mailbox 
> extension, not the transfer extension. 
> 
> that just doesn't make sense to me, and leads me to believe that it might be 
> a bug and could change behaviour at any time. i did a bug search on 
> connection 7.1 and "directory handler" and nothing came up. 
> 
> thoughts? can the Cisco folk think of any bugs or find anything? i'm gonna 
> open a case on Monday to get some clarification and/or assurances this will 
> continue to work as it is now, and the only thing that might change is the 
> announcement of the transfer extension instead of the mailbox extension. 
> 
> 
> --- 
> Lelio Fulgenzi, B.A. 
> Senior Analyst (CCS) * University of Guelph * Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1 
> (519) 824-4120 x56354 (519) 767-1060 FAX (JNHN) 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> "Bad grammar makes me [sic]" - Tshirt 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> cisco-voip mailing list 
> cisco-voip at puck.nether.net 
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip 
> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20091127/7e38362e/attachment.html>