Jump to content

Bad new mailbox behaviour in 2.0.3


cwernstedt
 Share

Recommended Posts

This seems to have happened with 2.0.3:

 

When callers get transfered to a user's mailbox they will hear an announcment saying that they have the option to either be called back when the extension becomes available, or to leave a message.

 

When pressing #2 to leave a message, they will hear the recorded greeting if such is available.

 

This new behaviour of the PBX is very annoying for the following reasons:

 

1) The call back option will not work with complex routing setups (e.g. if a special prefix is needed to route an external call), and it is not always desired that a caller gets this option anyway.

 

2) Being told that when pressing #2 one will be able to leave a message, but instead hearing the user's greeting, is illogical.

 

Is it possible to turn off these new "features". They create confusion for users, and are not helpful.

 

When the mailbox kicks in, the greeting (personalized or anonymous) should be played without any other options at that point.

 

/Christian

 

PS. The calling card system is still a mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, if you want to turn the feature completely off, change the setting "camp_enabled" in the pbx.xml file.

 

The camp on is only offered to internal extensions and to cell phone callers (must be somewhere on the list of the cell phones). The number must be dialable anyway, otherwise also other features like mailbox readout are not working either.

 

I strongly recommend that you have a "default" dialplan that works without any prefixes. It is okay if you have special prefixes for special routes, but you should have always a route that works on standard numbers. For example, you need that feature for callback (*69) anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, if you want to turn the feature completely off, change the setting "camp_enabled" in the pbx.xml file.

 

OK.

 

The camp on is only offered to internal extensions and to cell phone callers (must be somewhere on the list of the cell phones). The number must be dialable anyway, otherwise also other features like mailbox readout are not working either.

I'm not sure that I understand the part about mailbox readout. Can you clarify? Is what you are saying that anonymous cell phone numbers, or callers with messed up or suppressed CIDs, or callers borrowing a friends/client's phone can't be supported to access mailbox readouts when outside the office?

 

I strongly recommend that you have a "default" dialplan that works without any prefixes. It is okay if you have special prefixes for special routes, but you should have always a route that works on standard numbers. For example, you need that feature for callback (*69) anyway.

 

My biggest customer (a multinational company) has no standard way of routing calls or identifying mobile callers such that CID without prefixes could be used to route calls according to the client's policy and needs.

 

Further, I think that the PBX's dependece on CID to support for mobile caller's access to the system is a big flaw. Setting aside the lack of flexibility this model creates, there is also the issue of the unreliability of CID (e.g. My cell phone's CID often becomes suppressed when I travel outside the US). Why not fix the calling card function? Basically what's needed there is for the calling card to let the mobile user do eveything permitted from a fixed IP phone (given that user's or the calling card's dial plan) after proper authentication (e.g with a user code+pin).

 

I know I'm whining about this, but this is a major issue that I need to solve to make my customers happy.) Look here for a list of the hurdles for mobile users.

 

/Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that I understand the part about mailbox readout. Can you clarify?

When a user receives a new voicemail, the PBX calls the users' cell phone and reads out the new message.

 

Further, I think that the PBX's dependece on CID to support for mobile caller's access to the system is a big flaw.

Of course Caller-ID is not secure. That's why you must enter a PIN e.g. if you want to go to "your" mailbox or place an outbound call. A good reason to choose a different PIN than just "1234".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
When a user receives a new voicemail, the PBX calls the users' cell phone and reads out the new message.

Of course Caller-ID is not secure. That's why you must enter a PIN e.g. if you want to go to "your" mailbox or place an outbound call. A good reason to choose a different PIN than just "1234".

 

Why not let the calling card function and its authentication process work properly as a means of access to the system? I know I'm repeating myself, but I am really very curious about why my suggestions in this area are not addressed. The present limitations of the calling card (e.g. not being able to call mailboxes) seems more like bugs, rather than reflecting conscious design decisions about how to support (or rather, as it stands, make life complicated for) mobile users.

 

/Christian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...