Caller ID Mangling
azrobert:
Quote from: Transient on July 08, 2014, 03:37:02 am
Wouldn't this always strip off the first 8 digits, whether the date and time are prepended or not?
No.
{(<xxxxxxxx@:>xxxxxxxxxx<@.:>):ph},{ph}
xxxxxxxx@ will match the timestamp and the following blank.
xxxxxxxxxx will match the callerid.
@. will match the name.
If all the above match then:
<xxxxxxxx@:> will remove the timestamp.
<@.:> will remove the name.
:ph will route the call to the phone port.
If the above does not match then the 1st rule is ignored and
{ph} will route the call unchanged to the phone port.
Transient:
Quote from: drgeoff on July 08, 2014, 04:21:59 am
Can you discern which of these is/are happening:
The CID on
1. an incoming call from a number which the OBi has previously decoded correctly is always decoded correctly.
2. an incoming call from a number which the OBi has previously decoded correctly is not always (= only sometimes) correctly decoded.
3. an incoming call from a number which the OBi has previously decoded incorrectly is always decoded incorrectly.
4. an incoming call from a number which the OBi has previously decoded incorrectly is not always (= only sometimes) decoded incorrectly.
It's cases 2 and 4. It seems random whether or not a particular call's caller ID information will be decoded properly.
Quote from: azrobert on July 08, 2014, 06:43:34 am
No.
{(<xxxxxxxx@:>xxxxxxxxxx<@.:>):ph},{ph}
xxxxxxxx@ will match the timestamp and the following blank.
xxxxxxxxxx will match the callerid.
@. will match the name.
If all the above match then:
<xxxxxxxx@:> will remove the timestamp.
<@.:> will remove the name.
:ph will route the call to the phone port.
If the above does not match then the 1st rule is ignored and
{ph} will route the call unchanged to the phone port.
Okay, I understand now. Thanks for the idea and thorough explanation! I'll definitely try this if the firmware upgrade didn't fix it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page