Ok. Thanks! I thought that the response was sent when the route block ends (that is, when the 'break' action is reached). Best regards, ------ Fermín Agora Systems, S. A. -----Mensaje original----- De: Samuel Osorio Calvo [mailto:samuel.osorio@nl.thalesgroup.com] Enviado el: miércoles, 22 de junio de 2005 13:15 Para: fermin.galan(a)agora-2000.com; serdev(a)lists.iptel.org; serusers(a)lists.iptel.org CC: sd-ims(a)agws.agora-2000.com Asunto: Re: [Serusers] append_to_reply and save behaviour The reason is that the function save sends the response and all further processing can not affect this response (which is already travelling back). I don't know if it can be called bug, feature, or just design... ;) SER config file executes the commands sequentially (besides route blocks) and you have to be careful with the order. Samuel. Unclassified. Hello, I've found and estrange behaviour in the 'append_to_reply' action when used in conjunction with 'save' action during REGISTER processing. In particular, if I use in ser.cfg: ... append_to_reply("Service-Route: <sip:orig@scscf.domain1.com;lr>\r\n"); save("domain1"); ... Then the Service-Route header is added to the "200 OK". But if changing the relative order of the actions: ... save("domain1"); append_to_reply("Service-Route: <sip:orig@scscf.domain1.com;lr>\r\n"); ... Then the 'append_to_reply' is ignored: no header is added to the response. I think is a weird behaviour... I would like to know if this is a bug or a feature (I have read the textops documentation at http://www.iptel.org/ser/doc/modules/html/textops.html#AEN104 and nothing about problems with 'save' are mentioned). Thank you in advance! Best regards, ------ Fermín Agora Systems, S. A. _______________________________________________ Serusers mailing list serusers(a)lists.iptel.org http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers