|
[Voip.ms] CallerID filter not workingvoip,ms one of the providers offering caller block, but I find it is not always doing the job. I've posted this before, not sure what the outcome was; probably similar to the phone service, "you're paying peanuts, what you complaining about...".
Been getting that fake 800 call purpurtedly from RBC |
|
fparker join:2008-04-28 Scarborough, ON |
what are you entering for your callerid filter? |
|
|
to hockeynomad
I've never had any problems with the caller id filtering. I've used it to block calls and more recently to whitelist callers after implementing an IVR. |
|
|
[System] Message No Service |
|
fparker join:2008-04-28 Scarborough, ON |
How are you filtering out the undesired caller? What are you entering for the DID filter? |
|
|
to hockeynomad
I use enter 800* and 1800* to filter all 800 calls and it works fine for me. |
|
|
MartinMVoIP.ms Premium Member join:2008-07-21 |
to hockeynomad
We have no such things as features that are supposed to half work because they are free. More details would be appreciated, like how the filter rule was configured and the exact callerid that passed through it without being blocked. Thanks |
|
|
to hockeynomad
maybe try filters like this to block just 1800 #'s 1800XXXXXXX 800XXXXXXX
or to block all 8XX numbers
800XXXXXXX 855XXXXXXX 866XXXXXXX 877XXXXXXX 888XXXXXXX
1800XXXXXXX 1855XXXXXXX 1866XXXXXXX 1877XXXXXXX 1888XXXXXXX |
|
|
Plodder
Anon
2013-Mar-7 5:37 pm
Skip the '1' at the start. Replace it with '*'. It will cover cases where the '1' is sent with the caller id or not. |
|
MichelR join:2011-07-03 Trois-Rivieres, QC |
to hockeynomad
I've had this happen with one number - I think it wasn't a toll-free number. I opened a ticket and they suggested I switch to the toronto server. At the time I was on montreal, and that was shortly after the software upgrade. I tried a couple of things with no luck, then switched to toronto. Hasn't happened since. Weird. |
|
MartinMVoIP.ms Premium Member join:2008-07-21 |
MartinM
Premium Member
2013-Mar-7 6:07 pm
said by MichelR: I opened a ticket and they suggested I switch to the toronto server. At the time I was on montreal, and that was shortly after the software upgrade. I tried a couple of things with no luck, then switched to toronto. Hasn't happened since. Weird. Indeed, there's no need to switch server this feature takes the CallerID number and compares with what is in the database. - To Hockeynomad There was no ticket and there's no problems we're aware of at the moment, I asked someone to open a ticket for you. Thanks |
|
1 edit |
not prepared to block all 8** at this time, some are legit, but its a thought.
Martin, am following up on ticket. |
|
|
Shire Reeve
Anon
2013-Mar-7 8:01 pm
said by hockeynomad:not prepared to block all 8** at this time, some are legit, but its a thought. Well, no one should block all 8** because 807 is Ontario, 819 is Quebec, and so forth. But even in terms of blocking [800, 855, 866, 877, 888] numbers, one CAN make a case for this.... ....If not blocking, at least sending them to voicemail. Because as this fellow says: When a toll free number shows up on your caller id, its not there because the caller is calling you on a toll free number. Toll Free Numbers CANT make outbound calls....
When a toll free number shows up on your caller ID, it means that the caller is calling from a larger phone system that allows the caller to program the caller ID information. So do NOT take this as proof that the caller is actually connected with that number or that this number will reach the same people. It is against the regulations to program someone elses number into the caller ID information, but that obviously doesnt phase the people that are involved with any type of scam.
Just because they have a toll free number on their caller ID certainly doesnt prove theyre doing anything nefarious, but it does tell you that they are probably in some type of call center and are often telemarketers.... » www.tollfreenumbers.com/ ··· -id.html |
|
|
to Plodder
said by Plodder :Skip the '1' at the start. Replace it with '*'. It will cover cases where the '1' is sent with the caller id or not. Unfortunately, this will also filter out numbers like 6132888510. |
|
fparker join:2008-04-28 Scarborough, ON |
why would that be? |
|
nunyaLXI 483 MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO ·Charter
|
to hockeynomad
I've encountered a problem with VoIP.ms filtering. The problem is with filter ordering. To make a long story short: All calls from 636XXXXXXX get pushed through to my main account (I use a whitelist / blacklist method). However, if I blacklist 636555XXXX or 6365551111, the calls are allowed through anyway. Rather than processing the filter rules from most specific to least (think like iptables, firewalls, or logic), it is doing the opposite.
I never did hear back from voip.ms on this issue.
Is it possible you have a less specific rule that is being processed before this one? |
|
|
to fparker
Because *888* rule will filter 6132888510; * is replacing 1 or more digits. Instead is better to have 2 rules for each 8xx number how was already posted, in this case for 888 will be: 888XXXXXXX 1888XXXXXXX |
|
MartinMVoIP.ms Premium Member join:2008-07-21 |
to hockeynomad
After investigation, it seem the filter worked properly. The call is in the CDR because you configured the system to answer/playback "Message No Service". The call was not sent to you, but it's normal it shows up in the CDR. If you do not want the system to pick the call, select "busy" |
|
MartinM |
to nunya
said by nunya:I've encountered a problem with VoIP.ms filtering. The problem is with filter ordering. To make a long story short: All calls from 636XXXXXXX get pushed through to my main account (I use a whitelist / blacklist method). However, if I blacklist 636555XXXX or 6365551111, the calls are allowed through anyway. Rather than processing the filter rules from most specific to least (think like iptables, firewalls, or logic), it is doing the opposite.
I never did hear back from voip.ms on this issue.
Is it possible you have a less specific rule that is being processed before this one? We're open to suggestion on the way we sort the result match. Iptables doesn't sort on "most specific" to "least specific". It's just a set of rules. What do you suggest we sort the order, by length/numerical? It could be done easily. |
|
|
to hockeynomad
Martin -- tangentially related, would it be possible to implement some sort of phone book group system?
I'm thinking of Callcentric's filtering. I can create a group of numbers in my phone book, and then filter the group. Instead of having individual filters for each spam number I want to send to no service, there could be a single rule.
Just a thought. |
|
nunyaLXI 483 MVM join:2000-12-23 O Fallon, MO ·Charter
|
to MartinM
said by MartinM:We're open to suggestion on the way we sort the result match. Iptables doesn't sort on "most specific" to "least specific". It's just a set of rules.
What do you suggest we sort the order, by length/numerical? It could be done easily. By processing the match from most specific to least, or allow the user to select (and change) the order in a list. |
|
|
Plodder to Dan_voip
Anon
2013-Mar-8 1:20 pm
to Dan_voip
said by Dan_voip:Because *888* rule will filter 6132888510; * is replacing 1 or more digits. Instead is better to have 2 rules for each 8xx number how was already posted, in this case for 888 will be: 888XXXXXXX 1888XXXXXXX If you use *888xxxxxxx, it covers the two examples you gave. I have used this setup for years and it works perfectly. |
|
fparker join:2008-04-28 Scarborough, ON |
to MartinM
when I choose System: Hangup, it gives the filtered caller a 'busy' signal, not a hangup. |
|
MartinMVoIP.ms Premium Member join:2008-07-21 |
MartinM
Premium Member
2013-Mar-8 3:01 pm
said by fparker:when I choose System: Hangup, it gives the filtered caller a 'busy' signal, not a hangup. Because you can't hang up a call that has not been answered, we had to change simply hanging up the call to sending a proper code to the carrier. Simply hanging up caused some carriers to keep on ringing. Hang up is deprecated and all users who have that option selected will eventually see it change to a more appropriate description. In the end, it does fulfil the objective of not receiving the call. |
|
fparker join:2008-04-28 Scarborough, ON |
is there any way of seeing a report with all the 'blocked' calls (since currently they never show up on the call report if they have been blocked with 'hangup') |
|
MartinMVoIP.ms Premium Member join:2008-07-21 1 edit |
MartinM
Premium Member
2013-Mar-8 5:14 pm
They do show up, in your CDR.
Edit: I'll investigate first, to make sure they do. Perhaps we don't log 0 seconds call. Will get back to you. |
|
|
to MartinM
said by MartinM:After investigation, it seem the filter worked properly. The call is in the CDR because you configured the system to answer/playback "Message No Service". The call was not sent to you, but it's normal it shows up in the CDR. If you do not want the system to pick the call, select "busy"
Yes, will make the changes. |
|
1 recommendation |
to MartinM
said by MartinM:What do you suggest we sort the order, by length/numerical? It could be done easily. Perhaps patterns should be sorted numerically with * being higher than X which is also higher than 0-9. This way the following patterns would be ordered as expected: 800-123-4567 800-1X3-* 800-X23-* 800-* |
|
|
to Plodder
said by Plodder :said by Dan_voip:Because *888* rule will filter 6132888510; * is replacing 1 or more digits. Instead is better to have 2 rules for each 8xx number how was already posted, in this case for 888 will be: 888XXXXXXX 1888XXXXXXX If you use *888xxxxxxx, it covers the two examples you gave. I have used this setup for years and it works perfectly. The question is will filter also other numbers like 6132 888510 which is not desired? |
|
conwaytwt Premium Member join:2004-04-09 Conway, AR |
said by Dan_voip:The question is will filter also other numbers like 6132888510 which is not desired? Don't the XXXX's signify a specific number of digits? If so, *888xxxxxxx can only match 888 when it's followed by seven digits. |
|