Caller ID problem Second try with correctly formatted log files. Sorry Gert

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

 

On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Dave Packham wrote:

> 
> >> 01/10 10:28:25 yS1   waiting for line to clear (VTIME), read:
> >> 01/10 10:28:25 yS1  send: AT#CID=2[0d]
> >
> >Why "2"?  The mgetty documentation recommends AT#CID=1.  I have no idea
> >what AT#CID=2 is supposed to do, it's not what I recommend, so it's your
> >turn to debug problems (or explain why you did it that way so that I can
> >improve the documentation).
> 
> The #CID=2 is another form of caller ID that I found on USR's page just
> trying it here.  When I use the CID=1 I get no different log entry here
> 
> >The modem is supposed to deliver caller ID between the first and second
> >RING.  It doesn't do that.  (The log level is high enough so that every
> >single byte received will be logged).
> >
> 
> The USR page states the this modem does CID.  Its an internal 33.6.  Its the
> model that cannot be upgraded by flash so I have to live with it.
> 
> Thanks for your time
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
"Voice Command Set Technical Reference" from 3Com dated October 2, 1997
says:
1.6 #CID - Enable Caller ID Detection and Select Reporting Format
Future Support
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	This command selects or disables Caller ID recognition and
reporting in any mode.
1.6.1 Parameters:
	n=0,1 or 2
	Default:0

1.6.2 Result Codes:
	OK n=0,1 or 2.
	ERROR Otherwise
1.6.3 Command Options:
	#CID?
	Return the current setting(0,1 or 2) of the #CID command as an
	ASCII decimal value in result code format.
	#CID=?
	Return the message "0,1,2".
	#CID=0
	Disable Caller ID
	#CID=1
	Enable formatted Caller ID reporting of ICLID SDM(Single Data
	Message) and MDM(Multiple Data Message) packets.
	#CID=2
	Enable unformatted Caller ID reporting of any ICLID packet
	received after the first RING cycle including SDM, MDM or call
	waiting packets.


Note the "Future Support"!!
My USR 56K Message Modem (FLASH date 4/16/98, FLASH rev 12.1.17) responds
to AT#CID=1 ( or 2 ) with OK but AT#CID? after that returns 0 so I think
it's not implemented.

Hope it helps,