[cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as "Potential SPAM"

Fri Apr 3 14:16:17 EDT 2020

My understanding of how it would work, would be that the carrier would assert you originated the traffic and were doing so legitimately, not that you had to do it yourself.

However, that of course leads to a whole other world of fraud attempts, if someone can bust in and use your system like a hat or use call forwarding.

My experience with CNAM troubles in the past has been that 95% of the time the customer misread it, it was generic with the name of a locale, or they were using a device with a contact list that had the wrong information in it. The other 5% is impossible as I’ve never had our carrier do anything other than say it is the other customer’s problem.  The carriers and I guess people in the know or connected in this business can work their contacts back channel but otherwise the customer seeing the bad information usually has to complain. Maybe others have better success.

I have had other people report names and various things have appeared on their mobile devices recently, which should a whole other mix of terrible if it’s not CNAM and populated from account data or something bizarre.

Adam

From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net> On Behalf Of Lelio Fulgenzi
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 2:05 PM
To: Matthew Loraditch <MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>; Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com>; JASON BURWELL <JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as "Potential SPAM"

I specifically do this so we can do TEHO from our campuses. Some are serviced by other carriers.

We signed a waiver to do so.

From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of Matthew Loraditch
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:56 PM
To: Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com<mailto:ryanhuff at outlook.com>>; JASON BURWELL <JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com<mailto:JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as "Potential SPAM"

I’m wondering how this is all going work once shaken/stir are fully implemented. Are we going to have to prove we own numbers to other carriers? I’m sure many of us have DIDs outpulsed of alternative circuits at times.

Matthew Loraditch

Sr. Network Engineer

p: 443.541.1518<tel:443.541.1518>

w: www.heliontechnologies.com<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

 |

e: MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com<mailto:MLoraditch at heliontechnologies.com>

[Helion Technologies]<http://www.heliontechnologies.com/>

[Facebook]<https://facebook.com/heliontech>

[Twitter]<https://twitter.com/heliontech>

[LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies>

From: cisco-voip <cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip-bounces at puck.nether.net>> On Behalf Of Ryan Huff
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 1:52 PM
To: JASON BURWELL <JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com<mailto:JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: Re: [cisco-voip] [EXTERNAL] Re: PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as "Potential SPAM"

[EXTERNAL]

You need to become a thorn in the side of the AM for your upstream carrier. It’s a carrier -2- carrier fight at that point.
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 3, 2020, at 13:49, JASON BURWELL <JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com<mailto:JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com>> wrote:

Thanks for all the replies thus far. To answer a couple of the questions that have come up, we are using valid, working DID numbers that we own for all outbound Calling Number Masks. And none of the DIDs forward to other carriers, they are all pointed from the PSTN to our various gateways.

One thing that was mentioned is that a SPAM autodialer bot has at some point spoofed some of our numbers causing them to be flagged as SPAM which is certainly a possibility and nothing we can do about that. I regularly get calls even on my cell phone with the whole “hey I missed a call form you” from the caller and they get irritated when I tell them, sorry I did not call you.

I know there is nothing we can do from a configuration perspective. I was just hoping there was some managed whitelist these carriers used that I was unaware of. I know there are various 3rd party apps that do this but its definitely something being done at the carrier level as well because I frequently get these messages as well on a Verizon phone and I do not have and SPAM apps or subscriptions.

As more and more numbers are spoofed for SPAM calls I imagine at some point all numbers will be flagged at potential SPAM at this rate.

So unless I missed something, it sounds like there is really nothing we can do about it?

Jason

From: Ryan Huff <ryanhuff at outlook.com<mailto:ryanhuff at outlook.com>>
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 12:30 PM
To: JASON BURWELL <JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com<mailto:JASON.BURWELL at foundersfcu.com>>
Cc: cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [cisco-voip] PSTN Calls Incorrectly Flagged as "Potential SPAM"

CAUTION: This email originated outside of Founders Federal Credit Union. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
________________________________
I’ve seen this happen on my Verizon cell recently. Was very surprised, it was the first time I had ever seen it.

CNAME dips and presentation are done by the called party’s carrier, so there isn’t anything (functionally) the calling party’s PBX can do to influence that. CNAME inserts are done by your upstream carrier, so if something has actually been modified in the CNAME database for your ANI, your upstream carrier would have done it.

The only real actionable thing I think you can do (besides changing your ANI to something else), is what you’ve done. Call your upstream carrier and give them call samples where your call was delivered by the called party’s carrier and masked with incorrect ANI. Let the carriers fight each other on the carrier level.
Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 3, 2020, at 12:13, JASON BURWELL via cisco-voip <cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>> wrote:

More and more I have users reporting that their outbound PSTN calls are showing as “Potential SPAM” on called party phones. Its causing some real problems because these are legitimate calls that the customer in many cases has requested but they are ignoring it due to the message and if they don’t have voicemail set up or its full they have the perception we are not returning calls. I’m assuming the Caller ID name in the national Database is being substituted with this message by the wireless carriers. We don’t do any telemarketing so there is no reason why our calls should be flagged with SPAM. I’ve reached out and received little help from Verizon or AT&T. Wondering what other are doing to get numbers “white listed” as I’m sure I’m not the only one facing this. Thanks Jason

_______________________________________________
cisco-voip mailing list
cisco-voip at puck.nether.net<mailto:cisco-voip at puck.nether.net>
https://nam05.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip&data=02%7C01%7C%7C025b5c5e1ee24bafb68408d7d7e9e664%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637215271894155219&sdata=zqF5YXd0fzzHl21673j6mNrAMpXXNFuSYvppGmscXww%3D&reserved=0<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpuck.nether.net%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcisco-voip&data=02%7C01%7C%7C75dbe9d323ec40a5edf108d7d7f75e30%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C637215329746893028&sdata=FjAwP9kd4XohrE1D6CDkpWyq5W5u1VuY013TjvtN40U%3D&reserved=0>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20200403/4d04b178/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6884 bytes
Desc: image001.png
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20200403/4d04b178/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.png
Type: image/png
Size: 431 bytes
Desc: image002.png
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20200403/4d04b178/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: image/png
Size: 561 bytes
Desc: image003.png
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20200403/4d04b178/attachment-0002.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image004.png
Type: image/png
Size: 444 bytes
Desc: image004.png
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-voip/attachments/20200403/4d04b178/attachment-0003.png>