Auto Attendant Restricting Extensions

Home Forums Unified Communications MiVoice Business Auto Attendant Restricting Extensions

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #3788
    Greg Slevar
    Participant

    All
    I’ll try to be concise here, it does get a little complicated. Our 3300 Auto Attendant has the ability, or at least there is a form that has the ability, to limit extensions that are “reachable” via the auto attendant. A restriction list identifies extensions that may NOT be called via the AA.
    We recently had an issue whereby we needed to put this restriction in place. We were advised by Bell Canada how to do this. Easy enough right? The extension restriction doe not work. Bell Canada opened a ticket with Mitel and it was acknowledged that there is a bug that needs to be addressed with this feature.

    Those of you in the Hospitality industry will know how important it is not to have room guests bothered by scam calls.

    Does anyone out there know when this will be fixed? We have currently turned our AA off to avoid the situation, but that’s not a long term fix.
    Greg

    #3789
    David Hall
    Participant

    This is a solution I came up with a few years ago and it will work with Mitel embedded or external voice mail:

    1. Changed all VM ports except for last two to interconnect restriction 10
    2. Changed guest room extensions to interconnect restriction 2
    3. Restricted IR 10 from IR 2
    4. Changed all VM ports except for last two to intercept handling 10
    5. Changed IH 10 parameter “Interconnect Restriction – Directory Number” to 79900, (VM pilot)

    Outside caller in embedded dials a room, loops back to the auto attendant

    You can send the outside caller to any valid extension or device.

    #3790

    Hello Greg,

    Here is a description of the features below… Also once someone reaches a mailbox… we cannot restrict use of someone dialing 0 without deleting 0 for operator system wide….

    Auto-Attendant Transfer

    Allow Transfer To Any Number

    Enable this option to allow the Auto Attendant to transfer calls to any destination in the system whether or not it has a mailbox. To narrow the scope of allowable destinations, use the accompanying field, “Restrict Number that Begin with e.g. (6,8,9).”

    To only allow transfers to extensions that have a mailbox, use the default setting, “Disabled.”

    NOTE: The Auto Attendant can only transfer calls to mailboxes on the local PBX and to mailboxes whose number is the same length as its extension.

    Restrict Numbers that Begin with e.g. (6,8,9)

    A programmable field used to prevent callers from accessing system resources, such as trunks, ARS routes, and extensions, via the Auto Attendant.

    See below for conditions on restricting extensions.

    Access is prevented by programming the system to deny transfers when the leading digit(s) dialed match(es) the leading digits of a trunk group access code, extension, or other system resource. The field accepts up to 10 characters including commas. Use the commas to separate the different digits you want to match. For example, to deny access to a ’71’ trunk group and extensions beginning with the digits 300, enter 71, 300 in this field.

    IMPORTANT: You cannot restrict an extension number that has a mailbox. The Auto Attendant always transfers call to such extensions even when its leading digits are in the restricted list.

    Denise Desjardins (answer from product support team)

    #3791
    Greg Slevar
    Participant

    Thanks David
    So this problem has been ongoing for some time? It’s clearly a problem/bug, why has it not been addressed?
    Bell tried something like this and it worked as long as the room wasn’t checked-in. If the room was checked-in it went to VM for that room. Could/would this solution work if room was checked-in?

    #3792
    Greg Slevar
    Participant

    Denise.
    We (Myself and Bell Canada) understand the usage on the restriction and tested a number of options yesterday before finally disabling AA.
    Many resort/hotel guests are becoming the victims of scam artists who dial a room number via the AA and claim to be hotel mgt asking for credit card information. People being people sometimes give this information out. The real issue is even if the guest doesn’t answer it will go to voice mail. The fraud can still take place if the guest is naïve, if you will. The “feature” whereby the call will go through if there a mailbox on that extension really isn’t workable in todays climate of internet scams and telephone fraud.
    The call needs to be rejected, if we say so, plain and simple.
    Turning off the AA isn’t really the answer.
    Other systems have the ability to block outside lines from reaching internal extensions. Believe me, in Niagara Falls, there are plenty of other properties we can consult with. We can’t be the only hotel that have asked for this to be changed.
    Regards
    Greg

    #3793
    David Hall
    Participant

    The key issue is that Mitel should have added an option to allow/disallow transfer from the AA to guest room extensions a long time ago. I am not aware of a difference in results using interconnect restrictions/handling determined on whether the guest room is checked in or not but if that’s the case, Mitel support would need to address that.

    #3794
    Greg Slevar
    Participant

    David
    See response above…
    Read the sentence starting with IMPORTANT…
    If the extension has a mailbox, it cannot be restricted.
    See my response above. if you want to play in the Hospitality game you need to be flexible enough to roll with the punches that the world throws at you…

    #3796

    Hello,

    While the interconnect restriction would work… It can -if not careful in your programming create a loop .. ie keep returning them to a destination… t

    The second part of that call from Bell was to disable them from dialing 0… because operator could transfer them back to a room anyways…. ( pretend to be front desk operator.. ask for credit card.. ) this was also described in ticket.

    Denise Desjardins (with support from product support team)

    #3805
    Greg Slevar
    Participant

    Hello Denise
    What is the process to petition for a software change that would actually stop outside callers from reaching certain extensions from the auto attendant, mailbox or no mailbox?
    We realize that calling the console and asking for a room could also happen, however we feel we have sufficient procedures in place to screen incoming calls to negate this from happening.
    greg

    #3809
    Earl Armstrong
    Participant

    I agree with David Hall’s suggestion. I’ve used it for quite a while and it is flawless, only I always set the “Interconnect Restriction – Directory Number” to whatever the front desk extension is that way it will always require human intervention to get to a guest room. I have always also set ALL VM ports excluding Wake-up RADs to the IR10 as the VM ports never need to dial a guest room just dial a MWI feature access code.

    #6375
    Lyle Kelley
    Participant

    David Hall .. I know this is old but how do you perform step number 4?
    4. Changed all VM ports except for last two to intercept handling 10
    I have a Mitel 3300 MXe system and have found all other settings but how to set the VMPorts to IH10

    -Thanks

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.