And also, if I send caller ID filtering to system/message or hangup, when this caller calls in, I will not be charged, correct? I would like to block some telemarketing calls at voip.ms side instead of on my phone, which has limited block number storage.Now I have a voicemail associated with my account, so this is the final destination of the call as the help tells. If I set "busy" to "none" and my line is busy when somebody calls in, he will get into my voicemail and charge will occur. If I set "busy" to "system/busy", he will get a busy tone and there will no charge involved. Is that correct? I set "no answer" to "none" and set the dial time out to 60s because I want my phone's answering machine to handle this (6 rings, which is less than 60s).
The routing of the system to a busy will not incur any charges. If it is a recording to be played like "not in service"/"disconnected", the duration of the playing of the recording is charged. The same applies to the CallerID FIltering too.
I can answer this one. VIA is a field in a SIP header. It looks like this:3. I see people occasionally suggesting that people set the "VIA" entries on the SIP page of the PAP2T to "yes" (Handle VIA received, etc) when they are having difficulties with registration. What do these VIA entries do?
In fact I was just thinking the same thing to myself yesterday. What do the rest of you think? Do we need a separate VoIP.ms forum? Or should we lock this thread and just create lots of threads about VoIP.ms in the VoIP providers forum? I agree that it's difficult to find references to something that happened more than a couple of days ago.4. Finally, sheesh, this thread is over 1600 posts long. Has anyone ever considered expanding this discussion into its own subforum?
I agree! Isn't it grand?Frankly, this stuff is amazing.
I will try this one though I am a rookie too.1. Does anyone know if it is possible to point a Google Voice number to a voip.ms SIP URI? It seems, with the exception of Gizmo, all they want to deal with are POTS numbers. It would surely be nice if we could integrate Google Voice with a voip.ms subaccount, though.
I agree with you Mango. A sub-forum with smaller threads will be much easier for people to discuss specific topics and to help people find useful information more quickly. Voip.ms deserves a sub-forum, IMHO.In fact I was just thinking the same thing to myself yesterday. What do the rest of you think? Do we need a separate VoIP.ms forum? Or should we lock this thread and just create lots of threads about VoIP.ms in the VoIP providers forum? I agree that it's difficult to find references to something that happened more than a couple of days ago.
I'd vote for the latter (creating smaller threads for each topic about VoIP.ms in the VoIP providers forum) but my opinion could be swayed. Hugh, what is your opinion?
+1I agree with you Mango. A sub-forum with smaller threads will be much easier for people to discuss specific topics and to help people find useful information more quickly. Voip.ms deserves a sub-forum, IMHO.
Nope, ! acts like S0 on it's own. As soon as the string is entered it goes to fast-busy signal.Gimli, thanks for responding. I think the sequence "1900!", without the S0, would not be successful at blocking 1-900 numbers. Here's why: "1900!" only blocks the string "1900". It would not block, say "19005551212". So, one could either use the blocking sequence "1900xxxxxxx!" (to wait for the entire number to be entered, and then block it), or go to fast busy immediately (without allowing any more digits to be entered) after the initial "1900" is received. I played around with my PAP2T this evening, and found that the sequence "1900!S0" does indeed go to fast busy immediately after "1900" is entered. (I didn't check if "1900S0!" also worked.) Thus, I have coded the sequences "1900!S0|900!S0" in my dialplan, and they do appear to block all attempts to access 900 numbers. But, this brings up a new question:
It can be pretty long but when it gets too long you may start running into issues where it takes so long for the ATA to process that some of it's functions don't work. I've never seen it though.Does anyone know how long a dialplan can be?
Wow. So it does. Thanks for the correction, Gimli. I've changed my dialplan to take that into account.Nope, ! acts like S0 on it's own. As soon as the string is entered it goes to fast-busy signal.
Do you subscribe to e911? I don't (on my voip line), but I did look up the Sheriff's regular phone number and encode it in my dialplan as you have for 311 and 511. I debated whether or not to add an 'S0' to the end, though: On the one hand, it makes the call get placed a little faster, but OTOH, I can envision trying to dial, say, area code 914 and accidentally double-tapping the '1'. The 'S0' would immediately force the call to 911 whereas leaving it off would give me a couple seconds to abort the call before it was placed.[dialplans] can be pretty long but when it gets too long you may start running into issues where it takes so long for the ATA to process that some of it's functions don't work. I've never seen it though.
It's simple and works great!
I do. I figure having the ability to have my address sent automatically is helpful for emergencies where I may not be able to speak.Do you subscribe to e911?
The way I understand it the "." means an unlimited repeat of the last character but there has to be at least one. So *xx. is actually * followed by at least three numbers. Either way it was in a generic dial plan I copied as a source for mine. I could probably just remove it as I don't use and * numbers with more than 2 digits.Also, I'm curious: Isn't "*xx" a subset of the sequence "*xx.", so why use both?