Blocked calls getting thru

[jneal]

Got a call yesterday with CID of "PRIVATE CALLER" and one today with CID of "Anonymous" even tho I have anonymous call rejection turned on in my voice options.

My caller ID didn't list a phone number for either call. My Sonic call logs don't list a number either. The second call didn't even show up in the call logs at all.

Anonymous call rejection has worked for me everytime up until yesterday. Is it possible spammers have figured out a way to bypass both anonymous call rejection and nomorobo

[jneal]

Just got another one with caller ID of "PRIVATE CALLER".
It also showed up in my voice usage log. No number listed so it can't be redialed.

Why isn't anonymous call rejection catching these calls?

[jneal]

These anonymous calls are still getting through.

I was told by the sonic techs that they would not deal with voice issues anywhere other than in the forums. So are any support techs reading these posts?

[dane]

Support should assist with this, please call them. They can help review the call data record in your member tools to isolate this. It's likely not a blocked call, but rather the caller ID name set to "private caller".

[jneal]

Thanks for responding Dane. Maybe I don't completely understand, so before I bother your techs maybe you could answer a question.

You're right the CID is usually "private caller" (occasionally something else). AFAIK anonymous call rejection doesn't filter based on CID. The call log doesn't show (or maybe isn't even aware of) CID.

If someone has their number blocked and tries to call me it shows up in the log as "restricted", and anonymous call rejection works as designed.
But the "anonymous" numbers ring thru. Why aren't they treated the same way and rejected too?

BTW, I checked my records and I never received any of these "anonymous" calls before NOMOROBO (coincidence?)

[dane]

Got it.

If the "privacy" flag is set on a call, it'll display are "Restricted", and anonymous call rejection will cause it to be rejected. In this case, the incoming carrier has provided the "from" tel number as something not numeric, which is valid, but NOT set the privacy flag. We see incoming "TNs" which are not valid - alphanumeric strings, unicode, text, etc - and this is valid, and we must complete these calls. If that word is "blocked" or "anonymous" or "restricted" text, it leaves the impression that it should have been rejected by the privacy flag setting (a Restricted caller), but it's not because the call was not properly flagged.

To chase this down, we'd need to know who the caller's carrier was. We suspect that some VoIP originated calls may have interop issues where they're not properly setting the privacy flag, but we can't pursue that issue without knowing who the carrier is.

So - answer one of these calls, find out who it is, and ask them who their carrier is. Our guess is that it may not be a telemarketer or someone trying to hide, but may instead be someone using a VoIP carrier who has issues with their interop. I hesitate to speculate on who those carriers might be, but it'd be interesting to hear from you who the caller was, and if they're cooperative, who their carrier is.

[jneal]

Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea "legal" TNs could be alphanumeric.

I'll answer the call next time & ask about their carrier. I'm afraid if its a telemarketer tho, they probably either don't know or don't want to tell. If so, using alphanumeric numbers may be the newest golden key to circumvent spam reduction tools.