Voicemail to email changes

Home Forums Collaboration Solutions Mitel Collaboration Solutions Voicemail to email changes

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5191
    Judy Abbott
    Moderator

    Mitel made a change to text information on the Voicemail to email messages that users receive.
    Now my users when receiving a voicemail to email from internal users no longer get the callers extension number, just the name. They are not thrilled with having to look up the persons extension when it used to be in the body of the email.

    Anybody know if their is a setting we can change to show this?

    #5202
    Hank Jones
    Participant

    Judy,
    The changes you’re experiencing I believe were introduced in MiCollab Release 7.0 so they’re not particularly new. It is possible that you’ve just upgraded to Release 7 or later however. Below I’ve shown how it was announced in the What’s New section of MiCollab 7.0 followed by an explanation that appeared in another document. I believe the decision to change to name in the subject line was because the body of the message would always include the phone number.
    In the past, I could manipulate what is being shown via the FCOS bits 262 or 263 but I believe the changes to MiCollab 7.0 and later may have disabled those bits

    Show Name in email Header
    When available from MiVoice Business, NP will show the name of callers in the email header instead of CLI. The calling number will continue to be sent in the body of the message for easy call back from mobile devices.

    SHOW NAME IN EMAIL HEADER
    Applies to NuPoint standalone and MiCollab-NuPoint
    CUSTOMER AND PARTNER VALUE
    NuPoint UM currently sends emails to MB owners when they receive a new message. When available, NuPoint UM will provide the name of the caller in the email subject line so that the MB owner can quickly determine the importance of the message.
    FEATURE DESCRIPTION
    When available from MiVoice Business, NP will show the name of callers in the email header instead of CLI. The calling number will continue to be sent in the body of the message for easy call back from mobile devices.

    #5203
    Judy Abbott
    Moderator

    Thanks Hank. I appreciate your response. I did dbl check the FCOS & looked to see if anything new was added- all looks good there. Looks like this is going to be a Mitel Tech question.

    We have actually been on MiCollab 8 for a while now. It was working fine until we applied the latest update – MiCollab 8.1.1.11 in March. I’m not so concerned about the subject line change, its the body not showing the internal callers extension number anymore that I am getting the complaints about.

    External Callers:
    New Subject line : Voice message from 1234567890 : MB 1234 (now shows mailbox message was left in)
    New body text : Message length: 15 s. (25 kb.)

    Old Subject Line: Voice message from 1234567890
    Old Body text:
    Caller Id: 1234567890 ( this is missing in the new update)
    Message length: 34 s. (55 kb.)

    Internal Callers:
    New Subject Line: Voice message from LastName,FirstName
    New Body Text:
    Caller name:LastName,Firstname
    Caller email address: LastName.Firstname@cntrline.com
    Message length: 28 s. (47 kb.)

    Old Subject Line: Voice message from FirstName Lastname
    Old Body Text :
    Caller Id: ext. 1234 ( this is missing in the new update)
    Caller name: LastName,Firstname
    Caller email address: LastName.Firstname@cntrline.com
    Message length: 30 s. (48 kb.)

    #6038
    Peter Klingler
    Participant

    Did you ever find a resolution to this?

    Peter

    #6044
    Judy Abbott
    Moderator

    Hi Peter ,

    Unfortunately no. We still have the same issue which I was told was supposed to be resolved in version 9, but we are not at the point where we can upgrade to MiVoiceBusiness 9.0.
    Why Mitel made this change makes no sense. I still get complaints from users.

    #6357
    Kurt Bobinger
    Participant

    I am almost positive there was a patch issued for this exact problem. we had the same issue on the same release you are at. I will see If I can dig up the patch.

    #6358
    Kurt Bobinger
    Participant

    This is the actual file name of the patch

    Design_patch_NPM2047_13thNov.tar.gz

    #6359
    Judy Abbott
    Moderator

    Hi Kurt,

    Thanks ! A patch was applied , but it did not the email. I just reached out to my VAR to confirm if this was the same patch they applied.

    Judy

    #6387
    Judy Abbott
    Moderator

    Hi Kurt,

    This was the patch that was applied and it didn’t make any difference. Thanks

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.