(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
I'm hearing what you are saying, but I don't understand it. As I said,
988 is the first problem we have had, and thus it is the first
indication that this is even unusual in the first place. I could see
why you would find no reason to do it greenfield but I don't see the
motivation to rip it out.
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Hunter Fuller via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
> I hate to tell y'all this, but not only do my users dial 9 from their
> faxes to get out, they also fax internally (interdepartmentally) with
> some frequency. So, yes, these users dial 4 digits from
On 7/18/2022 6:45 PM, Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps wrote:
But 10-digit dialing (vs. 11-digit) is absolutely a thing. And since
even intra-LATA long-distance has itself existed for decades, and
always required dialing the full 11 digits even if the destination
number is in the same NPA as the
I hate to tell y'all this, but not only do my users dial 9 from their
faxes to get out, they also fax internally (interdepartmentally) with
some frequency. So, yes, these users dial 4 digits from their fax
machines.
Look. I get that the dial-9 thing is not how you would build a system
today, but
Weird, pretty much every old PBX I ran into had the fax lines on it, and
sometimes even alarm lines on it. One of my early trainings with alarm
panel integration, in the 90s, was all about coordinating the dial-9 rules.
I'm old, and maybe you mean more recently. I know we did a dial 9 in the
Carlos Alvarez wrote:
> Do your users still dial 9 from their fax machines?
Not sure if serious or "haha your users probably still use fax
machines" joke. So I'll give a serious answer just in case: I can't
recall ever running across a single instance of someone who has their
fax line routed
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 3:46 PM Nathan Anderson via VoiceOps <
voiceops@voiceops.org> wrote:
>
> Exactly & here we are in complete agreement. Carlos seems to be
> approaching this discussion from a perspective where modern endpoints
> are ubiquitous, which is fine and all, but it's simply not
Jay Hennigan wrote:
> Kinda, sorta. 7-digit local dialing is supposed to have been phased out,
> with all NANP numbers represented as 1+NPA-NXX-.
Whathuh? Maybe I misunderstand you, but assuming not & in my
experience, copper POTS trunks in NANP areas with mandatory *10* digit
dialing
Our user instructions have been telling them to dial like a cell phone for
over ten years. So they do have a defacto send button; dial and then pick
up the handset or press the speaker or headset button. Acceptance and
adoption has been great. It was harder to get people to do this in 2005,
but
On 7/18/22 08:36, Carlos Alvarez wrote:
OP makes his own points against it, and none for. As we add more and
more short numbers and possibly NPAs, the 9 becomes more problematic.
And is there really a switch out there in use today that needs it?
Pretty much any conventional PBX where you
On 7/17/22 23:43, Hunter Fuller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 1:19 AM Jay Hennigan wrote:
Kinda, sorta. 7-digit local dialing is supposed to have been phased out,
with all NANP numbers represented as 1+NPA-NXX-.
But, speaking of en-banc dialing on cell phones, do you find that
users
On 7/17/22 23:38, Hunter Fuller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 1:03 AM Ross Tajvar wrote:
re: dialing 9 - I understand the plight of having to deal with legacy
expectations, but what's the point of sticking with this particular
one? What makes it not-useless?
In our circumstance, all of the
OP makes his own points against it, and none for. As we add more and more
short numbers and possibly NPAs, the 9 becomes more problematic. And is
there really a switch out there in use today that needs it?
We have to kill old paradigms to move ahead.
On Sun, Jul 17, 2022 at 11:04 PM Ross
>
> If you still want to allow 7-digit dialing and have a local 88X prefix,
> or if your dialplan allows 10-digit calls without a leading 1, then yes,
> you'll need a timeout. Or make it 9-988 until they pass another law.
>
I think they already did:
On 7/17/22 21:19, Hunter Fuller wrote:
We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless"
according to other posters - a truly insightful attitude that I love
to see on this list),
It's not unusual in old-school PBXs and wireline POTS where digits are
processed serially. With
re: dialing 9 - I understand the plight of having to deal with legacy
expectations, but what's the point of sticking with this particular
one? What makes it not-useless?
On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 12:29 AM Hunter Fuller wrote:
>
> We operate a system with the "dial 9" scheme (apparently "useless"
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
