<div dir="ltr">Peerless DID's are going out with BW but we are signing attestation A since we know the clients and they are ours. The issue is the app doesn't look at stir shaken, it just looks at the prefix.<div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:39 AM Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <<a href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org">voiceops@voiceops.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">How? I have no idea, all I can tell you is the experience we see. Maybe Fred's comment has some merit if Peerless is either allowing actual spam, or re-assigning numbers too quickly (for new numbers).<div><br></div><div>Your porting experience is something I haven't seen, but we haven't mass-moved numbers in a long time. If Peerless is the common denominator...</div><div><br></div><div>Oh, wait, have you checked the attestation level for these calls? Are the calls with a Peerless DID going out via Peerless? </div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:33 AM Dovid Bender <<a href="mailto:dovid@telecurve.com" target="_blank">dovid@telecurve.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto">How is Bandwidth on top of this? We currently have about 18k DID’s with peerless. The issue is since most are DID’s that were allocated to Peerless, even if we port them out they will still be spam. Two interesting numbers come to mind</div><div dir="auto">1) My personal number (which I never use for CLI) was form RNK. I ported the number to a LEC in NYC and then eventually to Peerless. Once RNK went away the range it was in was re-assigned to Peerless. That number is listed as spam.</div><div dir="auto">2) I have another personal number that started at Verizon and was ported to Peerless. That number is NOT listed as spam.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The short term solution seems to be to get DIDs whose range is not defaulted as spam and then port them to Peerless/Telnyx etc. </div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 10:16 Carlos Alvarez via VoiceOps <<a href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org" target="_blank">voiceops@voiceops.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">We've had a lot of numbers from thinQ show up as spam right away, and a small number from Bandwidth. Generally though, Bandwidth is pretty good on this. It's possible (not an accusation) that the aggregators are recycling numbers quickly. We have a couple of customers who do legit outbound business dialing and get marked as spam, so they rotate a lot of numbers. This creates the problem if we or our carrier were to sell any of those to others too soon.<div><br></div><div>I don't know what your volume is, but for us Bandwidth was far less expensive than Telnyx. Around 8k DIDs and half a million minutes. Pretty small, but within the BW minimums.</div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 7:04 AM Dovid Bender via VoiceOps <<a href="mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org" target="_blank">voiceops@voiceops.org</a>> wrote:<br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br>We primarily purchase numbers from Telnyx and Peerless. Lately any number that we purchase is automatically listed as spam. I searched through both of their stocks for random numbers in random area codes (50+ numbers) and every time Hiya says it's likely SPAM. I presume they are marking any carrier where it's easy to get numbers spam. Has anyone fought back against this or are people just going with larger carriers like inteliquent/VZ etc?</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div><br>Dovid</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
VoiceOps mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:VoiceOps@voiceops.org" target="_blank">VoiceOps@voiceops.org</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/voiceops</a><br>
</blockquote></div>