+1000 😂😂😂😂
Sent from an iPhone mobile device with very tiny touchscreen input keys. Please excude my typtos. > On Aug 19, 2020, at 12:51 PM, Anthony Holloway > <avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> wrote: > >  > GTFO > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:25 AM NateCCIE <natec...@gmail.com> wrote: >> What about IP IVR? >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:16 AM, Lelio Fulgenzi <le...@uoguelph.ca> wrote: >>>> >>>  >>> +100 for Anthony! 😊 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Anthony Holloway <avholloway+cisco-v...@gmail.com> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 10:48 AM >>> To: Lelio Fulgenzi <le...@uoguelph.ca> >>> Cc: Matthew Loraditch <mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com>; Charles >>> Goldsmith <w...@woka.us>; cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice >>> >>> >>> >>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do >>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and >>> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to >>> ith...@uoguelph.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go: >>> >>> >>> >>> +1 IPCC >>> >>> +2 CRS >>> >>> +3 CRA >>> >>> >>> >>> Right? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <le...@uoguelph.ca> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have >>> gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;) >>> >>> >>> >>> But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point of >>> failure vs ease of administration. >>> >>> >>> >>> My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily >>> understood manual backup. >>> >>> >>> >>> And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone? >>> >>> >>> >>> Lots of things to consider. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch >>> <mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com> wrote: >>> >>>  >>> >>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. Do >>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and >>> know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to >>> ith...@uoguelph.ca >>> >>> >>> >>> We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script >>> editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we >>> need the regular techs to be able to handle. >>> >>> >>> >>> Definitely a preference thing. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Matthew Loraditch​ >>> >>> Sr. Network Engineer >>> >>> p: 443.541.1518 >>> >>> w: www.heliontechnologies.com >>> >>> | >>> >>> e: mloradi...@heliontechnologies.com >>> >>> <image137282.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image428710.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image540273.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> <image899251.png> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Charles >>> Goldsmith >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM >>> To: Johnson, Tim <johns...@cmich.edu> >>> Cc: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice >>> >>> >>> >>> [EXTERNAL] >>> >>> >>> >>> Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. >>> With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no >>> more XML files for schedules. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <johns...@cmich.edu> wrote: >>> >>> It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most scenarios. >>> When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to provide us >>> with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for the customer >>> to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule into our >>> script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, just to >>> involve less systems. >>> >>> Tim Johnson >>> Voice & Video Engineer >>> Central Michigan University >>> Call me: +19897744406 >>> Video Call me: johns...@cmich.edu >>> Fax me: +19897795900 >>> Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-boun...@puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of >>> f...@browardcommunications.com >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM >>> To: cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice >>> >>> >>> Hello, I just have a quick question. >>> When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the >>> main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx >>> triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go >>> right to CCX? I have seen both ways. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> cisco-voip mailing list >>> cisco-voip@puck.nether.net >>> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > cisco-voip@puck.nether.net > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list cisco-voip@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
