VOIP Tech Chat → [Voip.ms] CallerID filter not working

By processing the match from most specific to least, or allow the user to select (and change) the order in a list.

If you use *888xxxxxxx, it covers the two examples you gave. I have used this setup for years and it works perfectly.

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.

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')

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.

Yes, will make the changes.

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-*

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.

There's still a potential conflict with international numbers, though the odds of seeing such a conflict are pretty low.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

+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.

I also like this.