I was wondering if OBI has capability to maintain a list of blocked numbers. I could find mention to anonymous call block but not a block list.
If you use google voice you can block callers in your google voice account.
I don't know of the feature in the Obi.
I am going to keep OOMA as my primary line and dont have premier so wanted to check if OBI provides anything to block some numbers
If the list of numbers you want to block is relatively small, you can accomplish it by using the proper syntax and putting them in the appropriate InboundCallRoute (Physical Interfaces -> LINE Port, for example, in the case of your Ooma). You'll need to study and understand the sections of the Administrator Guide relating to DigitMap and CallRoute configuration.
From the OBi Device Administration Guide, page 110:
QuoteInboundCallRoute Examples:
[.....]
2) {14081223330|15103313456:ph,aa},{1800xx.|1888xx.|?:},{ph}
It says: Ring both PHONE Port and AA for calls coming from 1 408 122 3330 or 1 510 331 3456, block all 800, 888, and anonymous calls, and ring the PHONE Port for all other calls
So what I take from that is that you could make a block list that would block specific numbers and "anonymous" calls by simply inserting a rule of the form...
{
firstblockednumber|
secondblockednumber|
thirdblockednumber|?:},
etc., into the existing InboundCallRoute for the Line port. Omit the |? if you don't want to block anonymous calls, and separate each number or pattern with a bar character.
I tried the above mentioned config change and it doesnt seem to be working. I used following in the inbound call route for line port.
{(x.720#######):aa},{x.720#######|1888xx.|?:},{ph}
(for privacy replaced digits of my actual phone no by #s).
I tried to put one of my cell phone as blocked and another cell phone is a trusted one and gets picked up by AA. When it didnt work, I tried to play with first rule (e.g changed the no) and that did have the desired effect so that tells me the first rule is correctly configured to route the call to AA. Not sure why 2nd rule is not working correctly.
any suggestions?
Did another test.
1)
on my cellphone that goes directly to AA, chose the option not to send the caller id
dialed obi from the cell phone and it didnt send the call to AA as obi didnt get the caller id.
I did that to make sure caller id(and absence of it) was working correctly with obi.
then
2)
Switched the blocked no with the no that goes to AA. that means the phone no that was used in step 1 is now blocked.
called obi again. obi should have blocked the call because of anonymous call block but it didnt
This is a total guess (and probably not the answer), but try:
{(x.720#######|1888xx.|?):}
I've not used the ? operator, so this is shooting from the hip.
RonR,
1) I waS thinking about your call block strategy. Your strategy picks up the CID and drops them in a void. This approach makes a lot of sense. To make it interesting for telemarketers that make it on the block list, we could redirect them to a FCC phone number. That would certainly confuse them. If there was an IVR which we could record sound we could then direct them to recorded busy sounds, etc... Can you think of a way to deliberately send a call to a broken call path which could reproduce a busy or other tone?
2) How about the opposite of that. We might want to block out going numbers from being dialed. In an earlier thread I had discussed using the "!" character in front of a phone number. This character will block numbers from being dialed out. I had used it in this way: (Taken out of context)
{(x.218xxxxxxx|x.809xxxxxxx|!x.514xxxxxxx|!x.450xxxxxxx):sp1}
This particular strategy was to block any numbers with area code 514 & 450 from going over the SP1. I later allowed them to go over to SP2 as per the design of the user.
My first question is, why are you using x.720####### as a pattern? I may be wrong but I don't think that will match anything. You probably should be using 1720####### unless I'm missing something here. Try changing that, and if it still doesn't work, then just as a test try changing the order of the rules to put your block list first:
In other word, sticking with your examples, first try:
{1720#######:aa},{1720#######|1888xx.|?:},{ph}
And if that doesn't work...
{1720#######|1888xx.|?:},{1720#######:aa},{ph}
One other point, I think that you and RonR may be making the same error, in that you're confusing InboundCallRoute syntax with DigitMap syntax. They are similar in many respects, but not exactly the same. Oh, and the question mark matches "no Caller ID."
I was using x.720####### as this was the way my rule 1 of inboundcallroute was setup by obitalk.As mentioned earlier I had 720####### set as a trusted phone no. on the obitalk and that probably setup the first rule to forward any call from x.720####### to AA. I have setup 720###### as trusted by behind the scene obi used it as x.720####### in the rule 1 of the inboundcallroute for line1. I belive x.720####### means 720####### preceeded by any digit and even if caller id is 1720####### it should still catch it.
Want to mention again ####### represent the actual digits from the cell phone no.
As you pointed out I didnt use the '(' and that might be causing the problem. I will try with '(' and also with 'x.' and post the results
thanks for all the help
Also, instead of outright blocking a number, I think it is possible to send them someplace else. For example, I believe that a rule like {?:sp1(12484345508)} would take a call with no caller ID (the question mark) and send it out sp1 to 12484345508 (if that number is still what it was two or three years ago, a telemarketer will not appreciate you sending them there!). Note, however, that the second leg of the call is on your nickle.
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 10:08:19 PMAs you pointed out I didnt use the '(' and that might be causing the problem. I will try with '(' and also with 'x.' and post the results
I found an example in the documentation using the leading x. and parenthesis (right under the previous one I quoted - guess I should have read a bit further):
{(x.4081113333|x.4152224444):aa},{ph}
So maybe it is just that you need parenthesis in your second rule:
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######|1888xx.|?):},{ph}
The actual section from the documentation says:
Quote3) {(x.4081113333|x.4152224444):aa},{ph}
It says: Ring the AA for calls coming from any number that ends with 408 111 3333 or 415 222 4444, and ring the PHONE
Port for all other calls. Be sure to include the enclosing parentheses in this example since "x." is a digit map specific syntax.
So yes, adding the parenthesis may indeed be the fix.
ok..here are the results.Could only try with 1 cell no with caller id on and off.
This worked
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######):},{ph}
Above setting made the destination phone not to ring at all eventhough the caller was getting call rings. Caller eventually got forwared to voice mail. There was neither a missed call on the phone nor the call showed up in the call history of obi. Pretty cool.
This didnt
{(x.#######):aa},{?:},{ph}
no caller id showed up on the destination phone but the was no block.
Not sure why anonymous call block is not working.
I will next try to block multiple no's and also block call forward and post results
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 10:35:46 PMThis worked
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######):},{ph}
.....
This didnt
{(x.#######):aa},{?:},{ph}
no caller id showed up on the destination phone but the was no block.
Not sure why anonymous call block is not working.
Try adding |? in the blocking rule:
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######|?):},{ph}
The question mark might need to be enclosed in parenthesis, or we might have found a bug!
call block forward worked
this setting forwarded the call to 2484345508 that played some music
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######):sp1(12484345508)},{ph}
@MichiganTelephone - what is this phone 12484345508? Googled and found weired stories about 35$ charge :-). Can you shed some light
Will try the other parenthesis suggestion now
dealyanodeal,
It appears the recommendation I gave you was spot on:
{(x.720#######|1888xx.|?):}
I just tested it and it works fine. Without the (), it doesn't.
@RonR - did the anonymous call black worked too?
I havent tried that yet
this didnt work for anonymous call black with a call from my cell with caller id suppressed
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######|?):},{ph}
In this case:
{(x.720#######|1888xx.|?):}
all three rules will go to thin air. The () lumps all three together. Any of them matching and the call is history.
I tried a few other cases also, and everything worked as expected.
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 10:49:42 PM@MichiganTelephone - what is this phone 12484345508? Googled and found weired stories about 35$ charge :-). Can you shed some light
It's a number on a private Asterisk server (not mine), and it's in Michigan, so unless you are calling from the middle of the ocean using a satellite phone or something like that, there is no $35 charge! Whoever said that probably didn't appreciate the joke.
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 10:59:21 PM
this didnt work for anonymous call black with a call from my cell with caller id suppressed
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######|?):},{ph}
Routes are matched from left to right. The first one that matches takes and the rest are ignored.
Quote from: RonR on March 16, 2011, 10:51:18 PM
dealyanodeal,
It appears the recommendation I gave you was spot on:
{(x.720#######|1888xx.|?):}
I just tested it and it works fine. Without the (), it doesn't.
Hmmm, that must have been at some point
after this response:
Quote from: RonR on March 15, 2011, 01:03:02 PM
If the list of numbers you want to block is relatively small, you can accomplish it by using the proper syntax and putting them in the appropriate InboundCallRoute (Physical Interfaces -> LINE Port, for example, in the case of your Ooma). You'll need to study and understand the sections of the Administrator Guide relating to DigitMap and CallRoute configuration.
I tend to stop listening to someone after they give what amounts to an "RTFM" type of response.
Quote from: RonR on March 16, 2011, 11:03:58 PM
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 10:59:21 PM
this didnt work for anonymous call black with a call from my cell with caller id suppressed
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######|?):},{ph}
Routes are matched from left to right. The first one that matches takes and the rest are ignored.
And how, exactly, would a call with no caller ID match on the first
rule (it's a
rule, not a
route)?
dealyanodeal,
CID suppressed? Are you certain that the suppressed CID is in fact what you think it is?
just wanted to clarify a few things
The 720####### used in first rule and 2nd rule are actually two different 720 numbers. So if i am calling from the 2nd 720 number then it will not match the first rule.
Before using the cell phone with suppressed caller id for anonymous call block, i used the same for the first rule(i mentioned in my earlier post). I suppressed the caller id and called from the cell which would normally get forwarded to AA. With caller id suppressed, it didnt go to AA and that made me believe that i can use supressed caller id for anonymous call block test. I could be wrong but if it worked for 1st rule then it should work for 2nd rule too.
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 11:31:02 PMI could be wrong but if it worked for 1st rule then it should work for 2nd rule too.
That's what I'd think as well. You might want to send an e-mail to Obihai Support and see if perhaps there's a bug in the handling of the ? — I'm not saying there is, but they might be able to help you test it and discover the problem, since according to the documentation it should work.
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 11:31:02 PM
just wanted to clarify a few things
The 720####### used in first rule and 2nd rule are actually two different 720 numbers. So if i am calling from the 2nd 720 number then it will not match the first rule.
You mentioned in an earlier posting that you were using 2 cells phones, so I assumed the two 720xxxxxxx were different and you were testing as you described.
Quote from: dealyanodeal on March 16, 2011, 11:31:02 PMBefore using the cell phone with suppressed caller id for anonymous call block, i used the same for the first rule(i mentioned in my earlier post). I suppressed the caller id and called from the cell which would normally get forwarded to AA. With caller id suppressed, it didnt go to AA and that made me believe that i can use supressed caller id for anonymous call block test. I could be wrong but if it worked for 1st rule then it should work for 2nd rule too.
I got a little lost about who's on first and what's on second, but I think you'll find everything is probably working OK. Just remember to order your routes carefully if more than one might match, and to use parenthesis around multiple rules within a route before you get to the ':'.
Pretty neat stuff, eh?
Can someone define the "?" param = anonymous calls
Unknown number
Out of area
What???
Probably anything other than a numeric number is considered anonymous.
Quote from: QBZappy on March 16, 2011, 09:28:12 PM
1) I waS thinking about your call block strategy. Your strategy picks up the CID and drops them in a void. This approach makes a lot of sense. To make it interesting for telemarketers that make it on the block list, we could redirect them to a FCC phone number. That would certainly confuse them. If there was an IVR which we could record sound we could then direct them to recorded busy sounds, etc... Can you think of a way to deliberately send a call to a broken call path which could reproduce a busy or other tone?
Instead of blocking them you can forward them to a google voice number where they can be sent straight to voicemail, blocked, treated as spam or you can have a personal recording that plays music, busy signal or whatever. If you use a junk google voice number then you won't have to set up contacts, you can have the same action for every incoming.
jimates,
That too is an excellent idea, GV adds more options to handle the calls.
OBi Central,
Can someone there define the "?" param = anonymous calls
This is slightly OT may may be helpful to some readers of this thread - if Google Voice is what you are using to receive incoming calls then you can also use their call blocking features. This article just posted on "The Consumerist" site explains:
Just Use "Block Caller" In Google Voice To Beat Fraudulent Debt Collectors (http://consumerist.com/2011/03/just-use-block-caller-in-google-voice-to-beat-fraudulent-debt-collectors.html)
? is the correct syntax to represent anonymous caller in a InBoundCallRoute.
By anonymous caller we meant either caller-id is not available (or blank) or the number field is not available (or blank). Note that ? used in this way MUST NOT be included in
parenthesis; otherwise it will take on a different meaning. For example:
{(x.1234)|?:},{ph}
will block any number ending in 1234 or anonymous. But
{(x.1234|?):}
will only block numbers ending in 1234.
Note that any x MUST be
inside parenthesis to be processed as a digit map syntax.
------------
FYI, the ? mark when used inside parenthesis (in a digit map that is) is to
represent 0 or 1 occurrence of the previous character. For example
(xx?) means a 1- or 2- digit number. This syntax will be available in the upcoming 1.2 release
obi-support2: Thank you very much for that clarification.
dealyanodeal: So, it looks like you should try this:
{(x.720#######):aa},{(x.720#######)|?:},{ph}
(with the ####### replaced by your numbers as before).
Thank you for documenting the '?' operator usage in DigitMap's. It's not documented in the OBi Device Administration Guide.
Quote from: obi-support2 on March 17, 2011, 01:05:04 PMNote that ? used in this way MUST NOT be included in
parenthesis; otherwise it will take on a different meaning. For example:
{(x.1234)|?:},{ph}
will block any number ending in 1234 or anonymous. But
{(x.1234|?):}
will only block numbers ending in 1234.
Note that any x MUST be
inside parenthesis to be processed as a digit map syntax.
I just reran the tests I performed last night and {(x.1234|?):} does, in fact, block anonymous numbers in addition to numbers ending in 1234 (at least in v1.2.0 (build 2052).
RonR,
Thanks for trying it out.
OBi Admin Guide is being revised for 1.2. We should be able to post
the updated doc by the time we officially release 1.2.
Just to be clear...
{(x.1234|?):} does block anonymous calls. Apparently it's not supposed to (or at least not intended to). If that's the case, it could just be an unintended side-effect of an improper use of the '?' operator (0 or 1 occurrenceses of '|' isn't meaningful).
The only reason I'm pointing this out is in case you want to double-check the way you're parsing a '?'. It's a bit tricky in the case of an InboundCallRoute where it apparently has two totally different meanings depending on where it's located. (I might have chosen a different operator for 'anonymous' to avoid the ambiguity.)
Just to clarify:
{(x.1234|?):},{ph} would not block anonymous call, by design. This syntax is not meaningful; you are right about that. If it blocks anonymous, that would be a bug. We will check on that again.
{(x.1234)|?:},{ph) is the correct syntax to block anonymous call (and any number ends in 1234).
Just beware that inside parenthesis () is a digit map and special symbols will take on different meaning.
x?@. are some examples.