ialing when an outside line access
code (9) is being used
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the CDK organization. Exercise
caution when clicking links or opening attachments, especially from unknown
senders.
It shouldn't be much different than 911. 9911 and 911 can both work ju
I have never heard of this. What LATA are you in? Can you give an example NPA
where you know this to be the case?
As a consumer, if I were subscribed to ILEC without bundled long-distance, I
would find such an arrangement both confusing and infuriating. Especially with
near-universal mandato
(Quick off-topic note: did some setting on VoiceOps mailman get changed
halfway through the morning? "From:" now shows voiceops list address
instead of original sender's -- which I'm fine with -- but then
"Reply-To" is getting added and set to sender. So I now have to add
voiceops address to "To:
On 2022-07-15 10:19, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago.
I would like to second that. There is no need to dial a "9" (or 8, or
whatever) to seize an outside line anymore. We are no longer using
mechanical step switches, and as such, are a
I am still using a few old cisco phones that use the 9 concept, what should
i say i am using a click to call link when i bump into this issue
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 11:28 AM Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago.
>
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:
We stopped the useless "outside line" concept almost a decade ago.
On Fri, Jul 15, 2022 at 8:10 AM Zilk, David wrote:
> How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of
> 9 is used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers
> beginning with an NPA of
How are folks dealing with allowing calls to 9-8-8 when an access code of 9 is
used. Does this not cause a conflict when calling toll free numbers beginning
with an NPA of 88x?
David
___
VoiceOps mailing list
VoiceOps@voiceops.org
https://puck.nether.n
