asterisk users - Nov 2004 - vm notification no longer contains calling party

Hello all,

I recently updated * to 1.0.x from a CVS version downloaded in July, at
the request of BroadVoice.  Every since the upgrade, the email
notifications that a voicemail has been left only contains CIDName and
not CIDNum.  Here's an example:

"Just wanted to let you know you were just left a 0:06 long message
(number 3) in mailbox 1 from PECK JASON     , on Tuesday, November 16,
2004 at 04:12:59 PM so you might want to check it when you get a chance.
Thanks!"

I've installed 1.0.0, 1.0.2, and the latest CVS, and they all seem to be
having this problem.  I've searched through a couple months of the
mailing list, and briefly in the bugdb, but I haven't been able to find
anyone else that seems to be having this problem as well.  Has anyone
seen this before?  Is it a known bug?  Might I have something
misconfigured?

-- 
Jason Peck <jpeck@cgmconsulting.net>
CGM Consulting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url :
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20041124/79f642ee/attachment.pgp

I noticed that the commented out mail message in voicemail.conf isn't
actually
what is the default.  I fell into the trap that because it was there as a sample
and commented out that I assumed it was actually the default and it's close,
but not exactly.  Maybe the default behavior actually changed and should be
changed
back, but actually putting it in your voicemail.conf from the sample file is the
fix.

Hope this helps
Steve Prior

Jason Peck wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I recently updated * to 1.0.x from a CVS version downloaded in July, at
> the request of BroadVoice.  Every since the upgrade, the email
> notifications that a voicemail has been left only contains CIDName and
> not CIDNum.  Here's an example:
....
> I've installed 1.0.0, 1.0.2, and the latest CVS, and they all seem to
be
> having this problem.  I've searched through a couple months of the
> mailing list, and briefly in the bugdb, but I haven't been able to find
> anyone else that seems to be having this problem as well.  Has anyone
> seen this before?  Is it a known bug?  Might I have something
> misconfigured?