Call routing - Private/Blocked calls

**orum** · 01-24-2009 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by VOIPoTim

I think that was removed because it was conflicting with the standalone block anonymous feature.

We're tweaking some of the call routing options anyway and should be rolling out the next verison of that very soon that addresses several bugs brought up.

I was thinking about this again, and I understand the more simple nature of the standalone block anonymous feature, but it limits the user options.

If we aren't going to get anonymous as one of the inbound call routing choices, can the block anonymous feature have options - Disable, Voicemail, Blocked? (And is it too much to ask for a * code to control it?)

Thanks,
Dan

**orum** · 01-28-2009 08:29 PM

I figured out how to do this.

If you get an anonymous call, you can select it in the call history and select to send it to voicemail. It creates a rule that has Call From: anonym Send To: Voicemail.

I also tried creating this rule by putting anonym in a new rule as the "number". This also appears to work.

Now all my anonymous calls go to voicemail, but if I want to take them, I just delete the rule.

Dan

**orum** · 02-05-2009 08:25 PM

Something changed and this rule stopped working for me.

I went and looked at my call log again, and now anonymous calls show up as "restricted". I just added a rule for restricted to go to voicemail, and it is working again.

I thought others might be interested.

Dan

**frankd1** · 03-15-2009 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by orum

Something changed and this rule stopped working for me.

I went and looked at my call log again, and now anonymous calls show up as "restricted". I just added a rule for restricted to go to voicemail, and it is working again.

I thought others might be interested.

Dan

Is this method still working for you? Once the latest hiccups are comfortably in the past, I'm going to recommend my partner port his AT&T POTS line to VOIPo, but this particular issue is a big deal for him. As others have mentioned, my partner currently has AT&T's privacy manager, so he doesn't have to deal with anonymous calls. If your method is reliable (and isn't a coding quirk that might change once they start up feature build-out again) it's a non-issue. But I don't want to recommend he port if this behavior might change (at least without a corresponding new feature that addresses anonymous calls just as they already address private calls).

Also, is there an existing or planned feature for blocking outbound caller ID permanently (with per call unblocking), rather than the current per call block with *67? My partner's an MD, so this is also a big deal for him... blocking his outbound is the norm (not the exception) for calling patients when he's on-call. I searched the forum for this topic and struck out.

**VOIPoTim** · 03-15-2009 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by frankd1

Also, is there an existing or planned feature for blocking outbound caller ID permanently (with per call unblocking), rather than the current per call block with *67? My partner's an MD, so this is also a big deal for him... blocking his outbound is the norm (not the exception) for calling patients when he's on-call. I searched the forum for this topic and struck out.

This is in testing now. There will be an option in vPanel likely this week to block caller ID.

**frankd1** · 03-15-2009 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by VOIPoTim

This is in testing now. There will be an option in vPanel likely this week to block caller ID.

As always, thanks Tim!! Any idea if Dan's method for routing anonymous calls from the call log will continue to behave this way? Or is a specific anonymous call handling feature on the upcoming development to-do list?

**frankd1** · 03-26-2009 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by VOIPoTim

This is in testing now. There will be an option in vPanel likely this week to block caller ID.

Tim-

Is there a best guess ETA on the option to permanently block outbound CID (with per call unblocking)? As I previously mentioned, I've talked up VOIPo to my partner, but with his career, this feature is a necessity, and he wouldn't have the patience to block per call until the feature is working (now that things have been relatively stable, this feature is the only thing keeping him from pulling the trigger on VOIPo, and he doesn't want to waste the 30 day trial if that feature isn't in place). I'm firmly in the "stability before frills" camp, so I understand if you're holding on rolling it out for strategic reasons. But with the promotions starting to change, I'd like to get him on board soon.

Frank

**orum** · 03-16-2009 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by frankd1

Is this method still working for you? Once the latest hiccups are comfortably in the past, I'm going to recommend my partner port his AT&T POTS line to VOIPo, but this particular issue is a big deal for him. As others have mentioned, my partner currently has AT&T's privacy manager, so he doesn't have to deal with anonymous calls. If your method is reliable (and isn't a coding quirk that might change once they start up feature build-out again) it's a non-issue. But I don't want to recommend he port if this behavior might change (at least without a corresponding new feature that addresses anonymous calls just as they already address private calls).

Also, is there an existing or planned feature for blocking outbound caller ID permanently (with per call unblocking), rather than the current per call block with *67? My partner's an MD, so this is also a big deal for him... blocking his outbound is the norm (not the exception) for calling patients when he's on-call. I searched the forum for this topic and struck out.

Yes, this is still working for me. Anonymous calls go straight to voicemail.

Dan