Send VoiceOps mailing list submissions to
[email protected]
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[email protected]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[email protected]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of VoiceOps digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Looking for a SIP 48 port FXS
gateway&In-Reply-To=<[email protected]>
(PE)
2. Re: Odd "TOS violation" op intercept? (Jared Geiger)
3. Re: Odd "TOS violation" op intercept? (Frank Bulk)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 12:27:27 -0400
From: PE <[email protected]>
To: Sanjay Srinivasan <[email protected]>
Cc: Bill Doran <[email protected]>, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Looking for a SIP 48 port FXS
gateway&In-Reply-To=<[email protected]>
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
A few months back someone posted something here about a security hole in a
Grandstream product. I think it was a small ATA but worth checking to see if
the gateway had the same issue and that your unit has the appropriate fix
applied. Looking forward to your review.
On May 25, 2013, at 10:20 AM, Sanjay Srinivasan <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Yes we will be testing this device and will update.
>
> ----------------------
> Sanjay Srinivasan, CTO
> www.telesphere.com
> (480) 385 7062
>
> On May 24, 2013 3:51 PM, "Bill Doran" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I haven't tried one, but you might check the Grandstream GXW-4248. It seems
> more reasonably priced than a couple of 24-port units.
>
> If you do test it out, please let us know how you like it.
>
> -- Bill Doran
> -- [email protected]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130525/fdded02f/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 13:34:05 -0700
From: Jared Geiger <[email protected]>
To: VoiceOps <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Odd "TOS violation" op intercept?
Message-ID:
<cahuchrcfguofzy_uj4x3d-0nguv9gdupbd5prqty7mu1ovs...@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Did anyone narrow down an offending region/carrier? I'm curious. I haven't
gotten any reports, but my customers are regionalized.
Regards,
Jared Geiger
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Paul Timmins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Reminds me of the intercepts that MagicJack (Ymax) was doing to calls
> delivered to them across local interconnection groups that they perceived
> should have come across feature group d. It was all about making sure to
> monetize intercarrier compensation as precisely as possible (read: not
> allowing a single misrouted call to terminate to the wrong groups, for fear
> a few tenths of a cent might slip from their grasp)
>
> On May 22, 2013, at 12:51 AM, April Jones <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi voiceops,
> >
> > I've had a rash of tickets since Friday from various customers, to
> varied destinations over multiple vendors where I'm getting a terrible
> operator intercept/recording, and I'm wondering if anyone else has heard it
> or knows who is playing it.
> >
> > Recording plays "This call was routed in violation of our terms of
> service" then asks to record the orig/term and advises to report it to
> "your phone provider."
> >
> > I haven't found anything definitive, but I also haven't had a lot of
> time to really dig in...
> >
> > april j.
> > _______________________________________________
> > VoiceOps mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130525/6bf21ab1/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sat, 25 May 2013 15:55:03 -0500
From: "Frank Bulk" <[email protected]>
To: "'Jared Geiger'" <[email protected]>, "VoiceOps"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Odd "TOS violation" op intercept?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
We heard a few reports this week (Wednesday?) related to a number we have in
a CenturyLink exchange that's forwarded to our main office. It subsided
later in the day and I haven't heard of any new reports.
Frank
From: VoiceOps [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jared
Geiger
Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 3:34 PM
To: VoiceOps
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] Odd "TOS violation" op intercept?
Did anyone narrow down an offending region/carrier? I'm curious. I haven't
gotten any reports, but my customers are regionalized.
Regards,
Jared Geiger
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Paul Timmins <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Reminds me of the intercepts that MagicJack (Ymax) was doing to calls
delivered to them across local interconnection groups that they perceived
should have come across feature group d. It was all about making sure to
monetize intercarrier compensation as precisely as possible (read: not
allowing a single misrouted call to terminate to the wrong groups, for fear
a few tenths of a cent might slip from their grasp)
On May 22, 2013, at 12:51 AM, April Jones <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
> Hi voiceops,
>
> I've had a rash of tickets since Friday from various customers, to varied
destinations over multiple vendors where I'm getting a terrible operator
intercept/recording, and I'm wondering if anyone else has heard it or knows
who is playing it.
>
> Recording plays "This call was routed in violation of our terms of
service" then asks to record the orig/term and advises to report it to "your
phone provider."
>
> I haven't found anything definitive, but I also haven't had a lot of time
to really dig in...
>
> april j.
> _______________________________________________
> VoiceOps mailing list
> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/voiceops/attachments/20130525/924a7aae/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
VoiceOps mailing list
[email protected]
https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops
------------------------------
End of VoiceOps Digest, Vol 47, Issue 17
****************************************
