Cisco Support Community
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Welcome to Cisco Support Community. We would love to have your feedback.

For an introduction to the new site, click here. And see here for current known issues.

Subscriber input during Mailbox Full system prompt

Hello -

We are running Unity 3.1(5) with Optional Conversation 1. When a subscriber calls into Unity and receives the message "Note: Your Inbox is almost full. Please delete some messages now. Do you want to erase your deleted messages? For yes, press 1. For no, press 2.", the subscriber cannot press 2 during the message. If 2 is pressed too soon, the Unity conversation thinks you want to send a message instead of NOT delete any messages and just listen to voicemail. I checked the bug toolkit and did not find anything listed. Is there a way to "allow caller input" during this type of system prompt as you can do with a call handler?

Thanks in advance. Ginger

Cisco Employee

Re: Subscriber input during Mailbox Full system prompt

No, the subscriber conversation doesn't have a customizable user input concept as call handlers do (the subscriber conversation is much too detailed and complex to easily accomodate that).

I don't see anything in DDTS about this either - I take it you have users that are close to their limits but are calling in and checking messages and just want to blow through that warning... I'll ask the conversations guys if they know about this.

Re: Subscriber input during Mailbox Full system prompt

Hi Jeff -

Yep, our network guys have been working on a problem and CiscoWorks is sending them lots of lovely warning/status messages. They want to blow through the almost full mailbox warning. If appropriate with the conversation guys, I will submit an enhancement request through our Cisco office.

Thanks much! Ginger

Cisco Employee

Re: Subscriber input during Mailbox Full system prompt

Just to follow up here - the conversations folks were able to repro this and they opened a bug that you can track it through:


it's not yet on the externally available bug tool (it takes 24 hours or so to get picked up by the crawler). They should get a fix for it in 4.0(4).