Unanswered Email
tome:
Quote from: OBiSupport on September 08, 2011, 04:52:51 pm
Hello OBi Supporters,
Thank you for your support, concern and input on the dialog regarding the issue brought up in this thread. We do appreciate the great detail and resourceful suggestions on what may be happening under the hood of the OBi. Know that we normally read each and every forum post within minutes of it appearing for the first time on the OBiTALK forum. It is truly amazing how fast RonR responds to the thousands of users posting topics on the forum. For that, we are greatly appreciative. Also many of you probably do as well, we follow other VoIP user forums so as to gain greater insight as to the current use and suggested enhancement of the platform. About this particular thread -- We are looking into this but find that this is not critical bug. We have suggested some work-arounds about which we hope you can work with us (and you do) to see if there is a solution using the application of different configurations.
We have been working on improving the current products and developing new hardware and software products around which we believe will bring the power of Obihai Technology's platform to more and more consumer residential and small business users and Internet Telephony Service Providers all over the world. Please afford us a more time to study the issue in this thread. Of course, please continue to post and discuss issues here, but also feel free to ask for support via e-mail or open a support request using the form on www.obihai.com/support.html
Thanks again for your support and thank you for your interest in Obihai.
This is great to hear. Could someone please address his very specific questions in the last post? It isn't simply pointing out a bug, it also has to do with syntax and the fact that the workarounds suggested by Obihai support do not work. I too would like to know the answers...
Thanks,
Tom
RonR:
Quote from: OBiSupport on September 08, 2011, 04:52:51 pm
Please afford us a more time to study the issue in this thread.
Obihai support,
Another 5 days have elapsed. No answers to any of the questions I asked have been provided.
Attempting to reproduce the bug I reported in this thread and testing the non-functioning solution you provided cannot possibly take more than 5 minutes each.
Has any progress been made in this area?
infin8loop:
What we've got here is... failure to communicate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o
R_Chandra:
Actually, although it may be counterintuitive, scanning for non @, then @, then non @ is the more correct pattern. I encounter this all the time in writing procmail recipes when matching against email addresses. The problem lies in the fact that the regexp .* includes @ in the match. So in order to get a proper match, one must scan for anything not an @, the @, and anything after that. Unless one is trying to prevent double @ in the address, [^@]*@.* will work; [^@]*@[^@]* if one wishes to match an address with ONLY one @. Knowing nothing more (and I could be wrong), saying "your pattern is not supported" is a way of expressing this, except they don't bother to explain why it might not work.
Your point of it interfering with proper interpretation of star codes still stands though. Although....consider that non @ also matches *. Perhaps it could at least be worked around by using [^@*].
But overall, I agree that companies which send nothing more than an automated response/acknowledgement are bad (maybe not terrible, but bad). Communication, and clear communication at that, is paramount. Similarly, I really don't like people/companies when they're responding to an email who only answer one of several (related) questions in an email. It almost forces the sender to send only one question per email to ensure somehow all questions are answered. They somehow assume the answer they give covers all the questions posed, which very often is not the case. It's almost as bad as not responding at all.
It also really rubs me the wrong way when replies are put at the top of a message, with the original quoted below (the "Jeopardy!" reply). This is because it's close to useless beyond the first reply, as it forces people, or especially a newcomer to a thread, to read unnaturally from bottom to top, zigzagging up and down in the process. The time-honored way of interspersing original quote with reply is a much saner way. But people are lazy and don't take the time to make it arguably easier on everyone, and instead just start typing wherever their MUA puts their cursor. They're also disillusioned by the thought that it's best to see the freshest stuff right away, up at the top, but that's a very weak argument IMO.
I'm not saying this necessarily applies to Obihai, but support email in general.
RonR:
R_Chandra,
Although there are some similarities, the OBi Digit Map syntax is not regexp : OBi Device Administration Guide
Regardless of what you, I, or anyone else feels is intuitive or unintuitive, the fact remains that (@@.'@'@@.) conforms to the documented allowable syntax. Most importantly, it works perfectly and exactly as expected and intended EXCEPT that it causes the parsing of the Star Code script action 'coll(VAR)' to fail. This is clearly a bug in the Digit Map Processor and/or the coll(VAR) function parser.
OBihai's response (only after repeated prodding) that "The digit map rule you intended to use is not supported" plus "The solution is to use the following Digit map rule: |[^'@'][^'@'].'@'@@.]|", which isn't even syntactically correct, totally disables the OBi's operation, and couldn't possibly have been tested, wasn't bad, it was insulting.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page