Shared MailBox

[UKenGB]

I'm trying to set up a shared mailbox, but can't even work out how it is SUPPOSED to work.

 

Let's say there are 3 extensions (40, 50 and 60). 50 and 60 have their own mailbox which sends out voicemail as email attachments and deletes the message. This works fine. The other extension (40) needs to be a shared mailbox so that 50 and 60 can also retrieve the messages which are NOT emailed. I have added "50 60" in the 'Allow Access for Extensions:' setting in 40's Mailbox section, but what is that supposed to do? If I dial 840 from either 50 or 60, I seem to get exactly the same as before and asked to enter a Mailbox access code or something like that. Whatever it is, I cannot find any setting with the same name. But in any case, I just want 50 and 60 to be able to immediately access 40's Mailbox without having to enter any special code - whatever it's called.

 

Can anyone clarify the shared Mailbox function?

[mattlandis]

there is no "shared mailbox" in snom ONE.

 

What you can do however is:

#1-(as you already know) call that vm and type in pin

#2- or, you can register the both physical snom phones (50 and 40) to extension 60 in snom One. Actually snom makes it pretty straightforward to provision this. Just put the mac of physical phone in extension 40 AND their own extension as appropriate.

 

It would be a nice feature and you can help get it implemented by suggesting it here:

http://snomone.ideascale.com

[UKenGB]

there is no "shared mailbox" in snom ONE.

I beg to differ. I refer you to page 301 in the PDF manual, i.e. Chapter 24: Voicemail, in which is mentioned Group Mail, i.e. a shared Mailbox that can be accessed by multiple extensions as I described above. But in the manual it simply states that:

 

"The messages that are left in the group mailbox can be picked up from either the user’s extension or the group mailbox extension."

 

and no mention is made of having to enter a PIN. The latter being the process by which anyone can pick up voicemail from any extension if they know the PIN. This is not how I would understand a shared Mailbox and it also somewhat contradicts the description in the manual.

 

Typically the explanation in the manual however is very brief, to the point of missing out any real information about how it really is supposed to work. It is this information I seek and as usual some guidance from Snom wouldn't go amiss.

[mattlandis]

news to me.

 

(But would be good news though)

 

snom, could you weigh in?

[Vodia support]

news to me.

 

(But would be good news though)

 

snom, could you weigh in?

 

 

 

Actually you are both correct, it depends on how you want to use shared VM. The admin guide describes the cleaner way to retrieve shared VM as well but you can always use the "back door" for users that are on a cell phone, for example users can dial into the system, dial the shared VM "extension account" press * when the voice-mail prompts begin and dial the pin number. You can can practically combine the both methods.

[UKenGB]

Actually you are both correct, it depends on how you want to use shared VM. The admin guide describes the cleaner way to retrieve shared VM as well but you can always use the "back door" for users that are on a cell phone, for example users can dial into the system, dial the shared VM "extension account" press * when the voice-mail prompts begin and dial the pin number. You can can practically combine the both methods.

You assume I know what the 'other' method is and that's the problem, I don't.

 

Anyone can dial into any VM and access messages etc IF THEY ENTER THE CORRECT PIN. This is not what I would call a 'Shared' or 'Group' mailbox which should allow access from any of the extensions configured to use that shared mailbox as if it was their own, i.e. without having to enter the PIN. The manual appears to explain how to do this, just enter the extensions that can share the mailbox into the 'Allow Access for Extensions:' field. But having done that, it seems to make no difference and dialling in from those extensions still results in a need to enter the PIN.

 

Now it's possible that Snom's idea of a shared mailbox is different to my own and that they consider having to enter the PIN to access it is acceptable, but that seems unlikely since you get that facility WITHOUT entering the other extensions into the 'Allow Access for Extensions:' field. Configuring the other extensions like that obviously SHOULD change how it works in some way, but as I said, the manual give NO indication of what that change is. If it is to allow easy access by the other extensions, i.e. no PIN required, then there is a problem because it doesn't work. If the aim is something else entirely, then I would like to know because the manual doesn't give any idea of what that is.

 

So, first of all, should a 'Group' mailbox allow access without PIN to those extensions specifically listed in 'Allow Access for Extensions:' ? If so, why doesn't it work?

[echo3]

Yes, I'd like to know the answer to this too. I have to say, the answers Snom gives on this forum are pretty enigmatic. I think there are a few half baked ideas knocking around the Snom One admin interface (e.g. Presence) which don't appear to do anything. Come on then MR X - you say the manual gives the 'cleaner' way. Would you care to expand on that? Tell us exactly, step-by-step, how to set up a mailbox that multiple users can access without having to enter a PIN. The manual is next to useless. The description for each function is just the name of the function but with the words arranged in a different order!

[mattlandis]

Okay Gentlemen,

 

About answers being "engimatic"-- i have to agree. To write full, clear answers can be very time consuming--in snom's defense. To not defend them sometimes the answers are just frustrating... ;-)

 

I talked to snom guys about this at their office in boston a week ago and this "group voicemail" kinda works--meaning it requires a pin. (rrgg) Otherwise the feature is really cool:

 

** How to setup group voicemail: **

#1-setup an extension to serve as the group voicemail box

#2-in this extension in field "Allow Access for Extensions:" add the other extensions you want to get this vm from

#3-in the other phone you can setup a snom blf-button that will point at this group voicemail to retreive the vm and lighted when vm.

 

The only problem in the whole implementation--you have to type a pin.

 

There is a way to avoid pin---but hardly advisble: have all the phones registered to their own extension AND the group vm extension.

 

But if snom would just make a way to NOT REQUIRE A PIN THIS ABOVE IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BE GREAT.

please vote if you would like them to fix it!

http://snomone.ideascale.com/a/dtd/do-not-require-PIN-for-group-voicemail-box/135813-11275

[echo3]

Ok - voted! Matt - thanks for this, I didn't know about the BLF thing - was getting people to dial the extension number which is a bit long winded. Why don't Snom One document this? If they have, I wasn't able to find it, either in the manual or on wiki.snomone.com.

 

Anyway, thanks for posting, it's really helpful.

[mattlandis]

searching snom material can be difficult. Here is some help:

http://windowspbx.blogspot.com/p/snom-one-search.html

[UKenGB]

There is a way to avoid pin---but hardly advisble: have all the phones registered to their own extension AND the group vm extension.

Why do you say it's "hardly advisable"?

 

For example I want 2 users, each with their own extension AND a shared extension, to be able to receive by email VM messages to their own extension, but to be able to easily listen to messages for the shared extension via the handset.

 

Each of the 2 handsets (I'm using an M9 here) is registered to 2 Identities, each of which is registered to a suitable extension, i.e. a personal one for each and the shared one. The personal VM is emailed ok, but how can the handsets dial in to listen to the VM messages for the shared extension? Even though the handsets are 'assigned' to the Identity that registers to that shared extension, I cannot find a way to listen to those messages.

 

The 'main' Identity of each handset is the personal one (that's the only way to ensure they call from the personal number and display the correct name - maybe we could improve that in the future:-) and those extensions are listed in the shared extension's "Allow Access for Extensions:" setting. So My understanding would be that those handsets should be able to simply listen to that shared extension's VM WITHOUT having to enter any PIN. Isn't that the whole point of entering other extension numbers in "Allow Access for Extensions:". Otherwise, what's the point?

[mattlandis]

ken,

 

>Why do you say it's "hardly advisable"?

 

I'm talking about snom3xx /8xx and not the m9. (the M9 is even less advisable--in my opinion, not snom's opinion ;-)--to have multiple identities on one handset. At our company we've decided to not recommend having multiple m9 identities on one m9 handset)

 

Its technically possible (with 3xx/8xx) but the complexity of the system goes up exponentially when doing this. There are so many peripheral issues to what out for along with this complexity.

 

here are some of issues to watch out for when registering 2 phones(3xx/8xx) to one extension:

-*90 intercom doesn't work

-button profiles get tricky

-it confuses the user

-what else did i miss? ;-)...

 

In fairness to snom they make it incredibly easy to register 2 phones to one extension--even auto provisioning! And it works, you just got to watch out for issues...

 

>Isn't that the whole point of entering other extension numbers in "Allow Access for Extensions:". Otherwise, what's the point?

Absolutely. I'm waiting on snom to address this. then my complex work around for 3xx/8xx isn't needed.

 

Vote:

http://snomone.ideascale.com/a/dtd/do-not-require-PIN-for-group-voicemail-box/135813-11275

[pbx support]

Ok, the PIN requirement is a domain level setting. The point is that whether you want the mailbox access to be restricted by a PIN or not. That holds good even if you are accessing your own mailbox from your own extension. If the domain has "Require entering mailbox PIN:" set to "yes", then it applies to all the mailboxes. Basically, it protects someone coming to your office and press the mailbox button and access your or group mail messages.

 

Currently, "Allow Access for Extensions" behaves more like "copy mailbox messages to these accounts" only.

 

If the requirement is to have your mailbox protected by PIN, but not the group mailbox then we either have to push the PIN setting to the extension level or come up with a group mailbox account type.

[mattlandis]

the first 2 paragraphs just entirely confuse me.

 

So in response to the first paragraph: Please tell me how to entirely turn OFF all pins.

 

in response to 2nd paragraph--it COPYS message to all the extension?! so if 101 and 102 are in this group vm and i delete on 101 it will still be on 102? no....

 

 

The requirement is simple: do not require a PIN for the group voicemail box. don't mess with the other extensions.

 

is that clear? ;-)

tx

[UKenGB]

I am also still puzzled.

 

My domain setting is to NOT require a PIN and if from my handset (whose main Identity is registered to ext 60) I dial 60 or 860, or press the RH softkey (marked VM and dials 860) I am taken to the main menu of my own mailbox which is all correct.

 

But ext 40 is set for a shared mailbox with 'Allow Access for Extensions:' 60 and 50. My ext 60 is also assigned to the Identity which is registered to 40. I want to be able to retrieve messages from 40's mailbox. So first of all, from my handset I should be able to use Identity 40 to simply retrieve its own messages, but it is impossible with the M9 to choose an outgoing Identity (that would be a useful feature:-) so when I dial it will be from 60. But this is specified as being able to share 40's mailbox, so according to how it is configured, I think I should be able to dial 840 and retrieve the messages. However, I am just asked to leave a message as if I had dialled any other mailbox. IOW, having configured 40 to allow 60 access to its mailbox, in fact, 60 has NO more privilege to access the mailbox than any other extension.

 

This is my main concern. AFAICT, it is impossible to access any such 'shared mailbox'. Happy to be proved wrong, but exactly what does 'Allow Access for Extensions: ' actually do. Currently it seems to do nothing.

[UKenGB]

ken,

 

>Why do you say it's "hardly advisable"?

 

I'm talking about snom3xx /8xx and not the m9. (the M9 is even less advisable--in my opinion, not snom's opinion ;-)--to have multiple identities on one handset. At our company we've decided to not recommend having multiple m9 identities on one m9 handset)

 

Its technically possible (with 3xx/8xx) but the complexity of the system goes up exponentially when doing this. There are so many peripheral issues to what out for along with this complexity.

 

here are some of issues to watch out for when registering 2 phones(3xx/8xx) to one extension:

-*90 intercom doesn't work

-button profiles get tricky

-it confuses the user

-what else did i miss? ;-)...

 

In fairness to snom they make it incredibly easy to register 2 phones to one extension--even auto provisioning! And it works, you just got to watch out for issues...

 

You realise of course that you are referring to 2 entirely different facilities?

 

- Assigning an M9 handset to more than one M9 Identity

 

- Registering more than one M9 Identity (or any other SIP client) to a single extension on the PBX (i.e. account on any SIP server)

 

Mixing and matching the above is the job of the system provider/admin, to make the process transparent for the user and I agree it can be tricky. The important point is that the admin MUST have full control of the systems and that's where the problem currently lies. The simplest example of this is that once an M9 handset is assigned to more than one identity, the user has NO control over which Identity is actually used, which for outgoing calls can be a real problem. It's like a more traditional SIP client phone (e.g. Snom 3../8..) being registered to more than one extension, without being able to choose which to use for outgoing calls. How successfully could you sell that idea to a business user? I suspect not at all.

 

Anyway, the idea of M9 handset naming and Identity control is covered elsewhere (different forum even). Which leaves the 'shared mailbox' issue of this topic that is still unresolved.

[mattlandis]

ken,

 

yes, i'm aware 2 different things. Yeah, i did /swithc without a transition too. ;-)

 

on the reason for this thread we are 100% agreed--allow no pin for group vm. ;-)

 

take care

[pbx support]

This is my main concern. AFAICT, it is impossible to access any such 'shared mailbox'. Happy to be proved wrong, but exactly what does 'Allow Access for Extensions: ' actually do. Currently it seems to do nothing.

 

After reading this post, shared mailbox becoming more & more difficult to me

 

If you do not want the PIN message to be heard at all -

• Disable "Require PIN..." at the domain level
  
• At the "shared mailbox" account(40), enter the other extensions in "Allow Access for Extensions" field (50 & 60)
  
• If someone leaves message for 40, both 50 & 60 are notified (MWI)
  
• Now the 50 can access this message by dialing 50 or 850. Similarly, 60 can access it by dialing 60 or 860.
  
• That's all folks
  

 

If the shared mailbox account(40) is not registered, it helps to simplify the "understanding"

[UKenGB]

If you do not want the PIN message to be heard at all -

• Disable "Require PIN..." at the domain level
  
• At the "shared mailbox" account(40), enter the other extensions in "Allow Access for Extensions" field (50 & 60)
  
• If someone leaves message for 40, both 50 & 60 are notified (MWI)
  
• Now the 50 can access this message by dialing 50 or 850. Similarly, 60 can access it by dialing 60 or 860.
  

The problem is that what you describe simply doesn't happen.

 

I've disabled PIN at the domain level, so that's not a problem.

I've set account(40) to "Allow Access for Extensions" field (50 & 60)

But neither 50 nor 60 can access that shared mailbox in the manner you describe. If they dial 50 or 60 respectively, they simply access their own mailbox (which is as I believe it should be and it works fine). So how do they access the mailbox at 40? If they dial 40 it just rings extension 40 and if they dial 840, they are only given the option to leave a message. But this is standard behaviour for ANY extension dialling ANY OTHER extension's mailbox, so exactly what has "Allow Access for Extensions" done? As far I can see, nothing.

 

So, how do 50 and 60 access 40's shared mailbox. Sounds simple but AFAICT, it cannot be done.

[pbx support]

Let me ask couple more questions -

Do you see the MWI on 50 or 60 when someone leaves a VM for 40?

When you dial 850 (or 50) do you hear the messages that are left for 40 as well? It doesn't matter if "they simply access their own mailbox".

 

All our testing show that you can access the messages left for 40.

 

If the above is true in your case too, the next obvious question is "how do I differentiate messages left for the group mailbox from my own". I believe we do not have that capability yet.

[mattlandis]

i beileve what UKenGB is missing is assigning a snom button to "MWI" for the group mailbox.

[UKenGB]

Let me ask couple more questions -

Do you see the MWI on 50 or 60 when someone leaves a VM for 40?

When you dial 850 (or 50) do you hear the messages that are left for 40 as well? It doesn't matter if "they simply access their own mailbox".

 

All our testing show that you can access the messages left for 40.

 

If the above is true in your case too, the next obvious question is "how do I differentiate messages left for the group mailbox from my own". I believe we do not have that capability yet.

I see what's happening now. If a message is left for the shared mailbox (40) it is indeed sent to 60 (and maybe 50 too), but that extension is set to forward received messages by email, so the message received for 40 is simply emailed exactly the same as if it was a message for 60. As you say, there is no distinction.

 

This is a problem on several counts. First of all, it indicates the messages to the shared mailbox are NOT shared, but simply duplicated to other mailboxes. This is NOT sharing, it is copying and doesn't allow for real message sharing. How does one recipient know what has been done by any other. So in my case, 60 might receive a message and act on it, then later 50 listens to it and acts on it again. The idea of a SHARED mailbox is precisely so this doesn't occur and in fact if you do want this, it can already be achieved with email. SO there's 2 ways to copy messages to multiple recipients and no way at all to truly share a mailbox.

 

A shared mailbox should be just that. So in my case, if a message is left for 40, either 50 or 60 can listen to that message, deal with it as they wish and the result will be the same for the other recipient. So if 50 listens to the message, then it is no longer a new message for 60 and vice versa. If either deletes the message, it is also deleted for the other. It should work for the user just like IMAP mailboxes.

 

Any chance we can have a true 'shared' mailbox?

[mattlandis]

hmmmmmmmmm...copying will not work.

[pbx support]

There is only 1 message created but the MWI is sent to both 50 & 60. As soon as one of them (50 or 60) reads the message, both will be notified again of this operation. So, only 1 will "act" on it.

[UKenGB]

There is only 1 message created but the MWI is sent to both 50 & 60. As soon as one of them (50 or 60) reads the message, both will be notified again of this operation. So, only 1 will "act" on it.

OK, that's good news. So it IS shared.

 

But I still have the problem with it being emailed.

 

I have specified that messages for 60 get emailed. But messages for 40 (i.e. the shared mailbox) are also being emailed. However 40's config does NOT specify emailing its messages, so it would appear to be the MWI that triggers emailing of whatever message that initiated the MWI and that occurs with ALL other extensions that share this mailbox and since they then each receive a COPY of the message, we've lost the whole 'shared mailbox' concept.

 

What I am trying to achieve and what seems entirely logical that many users would want the same, is for the individual extensions (i.e. 50 and 60 in my example) to have their own messages emailed, but messages in the shared mailbox (40) are NOT emailed and instead accessed from the phones which allows true sharing as we've now established.

 

I realise this is currently impossible (I guess this comes down to snomONE's inability to distinguish between the 2 message types), but any chance we could achieve this in the future?