dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1687
share rss forum feed


nunya
LXI 483
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:12
Reviews:
·Charter
·voip.ms
reply to MartinM

Re: [Voip.ms] CallerID filter not working

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.
--
If someone refers to herself / himself as a "guru", they probably aren't.


Plodder

@gsdn.me
reply to Dan_voip
said by Dan_voip:

said by fparker:

why would that be?

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
reply to MartinM
when I choose System: Hangup, it gives the filtered caller a 'busy' signal, not a hangup.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
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.

--
Martin - VoiP.ms

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')

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4

1 edit
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.
--
Martin - VoiP.ms

hockeynomad

join:2007-06-19
Mississauga, ON
reply 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.

JeanInNepean

join:2012-09-19
Nepean, ON
Reviews:
·TekSavvy TekTalk
·voip.ms
·Primus Talkbroad..

1 recommendation

reply 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-*

Dan_voip

join:2007-01-03
Saint-Hubert, QC
kudos:4
reply to Plodder
said by Plodder :

said by Dan_voip:

said by fparker:

why would that be?

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 6132888510 which is not desired?

conwaytwt
Premium
join:2004-04-09
Conway, AR
Reviews:
·Conway Corp.
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.

JeanInNepean

join:2012-09-19
Nepean, ON
There's still a potential conflict with international numbers, though the odds of seeing such a conflict are pretty low.

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to JeanInNepean
said by JeanInNepean:

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-*

We need to use database logic in a simple query.

I think I got one that would bring the improvement everybody is looking forward to:

LEGEND:
number = number being filtered
desc = descending order
asc = ascending order
 
order by  LENGTH(number) desc,number asc
 
Example priority list for this sorting:
 
Example on priority order with this order type 
 
2146158500 | Boss
214XXXXXXX | Something else
5122221234 | Friend
5145555555 | Mom
8005555555 | something
800555XXXX | Something else
214615* | Something
214*    | Area Code Playback Recording Call local number instead of our Toll-Free
800*       | SPAM
 
 

This way longer, more specific rules take priority over the short ones.

--
Martin - VoiP.ms

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
reply to JeanInNepean
I've tested the new query proposed by adding a bunch of filters to my own account and it seem to works fine. I've submitted the changes to our main programmer and it will be implement this week.

We'll also edit the Filter page to document the new order priority (From most specific to less specific, with some examples). An announcement will also be posted to make sure people who relied on order of addition are not affected by this and for you guys to be aware that the changes have been published.

Thanks all who contributed to this improvement.
--
Martin - VoiP.ms

grand total

join:2005-10-26
Mississauga
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
·Anveo
reply to MartinM
said by MartinM:

We need to use database logic in a simple query.

I think I got one that would bring the improvement everybody is looking forward to:

LEGEND:
number = number being filtered
desc = descending order
asc = ascending order
 
order by  LENGTH(number) desc,number asc
 
Example priority list for this sorting:
 
Example on priority order with this order type 
 
2146158500 | Boss
214XXXXXXX | Something else
5122221234 | Friend
5145555555 | Mom
8005555555 | something
800555XXXX | Something else
214615* | Something
214*    | Area Code Playback Recording Call local number instead of our Toll-Free
800*       | SPAM
 
 

This way longer, more specific rules take priority over the short ones.

Interesting but, in a way, I consider 214615* to be more specific than 214XXXXXXX, though I can follow your argument.

--
DPC3825 (bridge mode) - WRT610N + Tomato - Panasonic KX-TGP500 - Asterisk 1.8.10.1 on a Virtual Server
Anveo - FreePhoneLine - Voxbeam - Numbergroup - Callcentric - VoIP.ms - Localphone - UKDDI

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
said by grand total:

Interesting but, in a way, I consider 214615* to be more specific than 214XXXXXXX, though I can follow your argument.

Indeed, in this case you just need to use 214615XXXX. The priority order list will be explained when released on the filter page. Not everyone use it either. Also, tweaks to this idea will obviously be done by our programmers before it's released.

--
Martin - VoiP.ms

MartinM
VoIP.ms
Premium,VIP
join:2008-07-21
kudos:4
reply to adatech
said by adatech:

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.

Is there a reason why you want to filter spam a phone book? Wouldn't a import feature in the filtering section be a cleaner solution? I can understand the appeal of a phone book group to apply filtering rules such as time conditions, ivr etc but for spam, not sure, unless there's something I am missing? If you could "enlighten me" that would be great Thanks
--
Martin - VoiP.ms

adatech

join:2010-04-23

said by MartinM See Profile
Is there a reason why you want to filter spam a phone book? Wouldn't a import feature in the filtering section be a cleaner solution? I can understand the appeal of a phone book group to apply filtering rules such as time conditions, ivr etc but for spam, not sure, unless there's something I am missing? If you could "enlighten me" that would be great Thanks

:

It's mostly a matter of elegance. Right now, for example, I have about 20 different filters -- the majority of which are individual spam entries. When I get a telemarketing call, or a persistent mis-dial, I add a new filter sending it to a "No Service" message.

What would be easier, at least in my view, would be to have a filter that operated on a "Spam" group in my Phone Book. Then, you just have to add the number to the group, and voila -- instant filtering.

I understand that some may see this as cluttering up their Phone Book, which I think is an understandable objection. But I can also see the benefit of filtering groups in other contexts. For example, you could have a "Close friends" or "Work" group with a set of numbers, and operate a filter based on that (e.g., calls from numbers in the work group go to voicemail after 5:00PM).

I guess the bottom line is that, in my personal work-flow, I see the spam filtering aspect as a by-product of a useful feature (like you mentioned -- time conditions for groups of numbers, etc.) I think a group feature in the phone book (independently useful for sorting large phone books) and the ability to filter on groups (useful for many things, one of which is spam filtering).

Alternatively, I could see the benefit of a specific SPAM blacklisting feature. This could be implemented via the web portal (add a number, it gets blacklisted on your account) and/or through star-codes (*XX adds last inbound caller ID to the blacklist). Long-term, and I'm sure much more complicated, this could be used to start building some sort of system-wide grey-listing ability, with users having the option of filtering (e.g., to voicemail) caller ID's that have been reported as SPAMy by other Voip.ms users.

That got really long, sorry about that! Just some ideas for future features that would improve my workflow, and possibly others.



ctaranto

join:2011-12-14
MA
I'll +1 what adatech is saying.

While grouping doesn't provide any additional "feature set", it makes life a heck of a lot easier when adding numbers to block, whitelist, etc, especially when adding failover options to each entry manually.

For example, I have 32 entries in my CallerID filter for spam numbers (System Disconnect). They are scattered throughout my entire list. It would be great to have a single entry, SPAM, apply the appropriate filters to it, and separately add a bunch of numbers to the group. Likewise for whitelisting family, or restricting calls from colleagues, etc.

-Craig


horacebork
Premium
join:2011-03-17
09001
Reviews:
·Time Warner Cable
·voip.ms

1 edit
reply to adatech
+1 on adatech. my caller id filter is short at the moment, but growing.
i put in a feature request a couple weeks ago on exactly this topic:

allow multiple numbers added to a specific filter for spam calls.

-------------
is there a difference from the spammer's point of view if they get 'system: number disconnected' or 'system: number not in service'?
i'm trying to figure out what would be the best reply to spammers.
i feel a busy signal tells them the number is valid, just unavailable.

--
".. the sofa has just vanished." ".. well, that's one mystery less."

Radar73

join:2008-01-20
Ajax, ON
reply to adatech
I also like this.