Home › Forums › Collaboration Solutions › Mitel Collaboration Solutions › Voicemail to email changes
Tagged: The change you
- This topic has 8 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 months, 2 weeks ago by
Judy Abbott.
-
AuthorPosts
-
April 15, 2019 at 10:54 am #5191
Judy Abbott
ModeratorMitel 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?
April 19, 2019 at 1:21 pm #5202Hank Jones
ParticipantJudy,
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 bitsShow 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.April 22, 2019 at 7:31 am #5203Judy Abbott
ModeratorThanks 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.)April 22, 2020 at 2:38 pm #6038Peter Klingler
ParticipantDid you ever find a resolution to this?
Peter
April 27, 2020 at 5:36 am #6044Judy Abbott
ModeratorHi 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.August 6, 2020 at 2:08 pm #6357Kurt Bobinger
ParticipantI 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.
August 6, 2020 at 2:12 pm #6358Kurt Bobinger
ParticipantThis is the actual file name of the patch
Design_patch_NPM2047_13thNov.tar.gz
August 7, 2020 at 6:54 am #6359Judy Abbott
ModeratorHi 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
September 15, 2020 at 1:11 pm #6387Judy Abbott
ModeratorHi Kurt,
This was the patch that was applied and it didn’t make any difference. Thanks
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.