Wait Lelio, CRA is older terminology than CRS, so it should go: +1 IPCC +2 CRS +3 CRA
Right? On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 8:53 AM Lelio Fulgenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Not much more to add here, except +1 for calling in IPCC. :) you’d have > gotten +2 if you called it CRA. ;) > > But, seriously, you have to weigh the pros and cons of injecting a point > of failure vs ease of administration. > > My thought process is, can you build automatic recovery? Or easily > understood manual backup. > > And is the design something you can easily hand off to someone? > > Lots of things to consider. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Aug 19, 2020, at 9:00 AM, Matthew Loraditch < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the University of Guelph. > Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and > know the content is safe. If in doubt, forward suspicious emails to > [email protected] > > We still use Call Handlers. We have fewer resources who can handle script > editing and somewhat frequent requests to change hours and such that we > need the regular techs to be able to handle. > > > > Definitely a preference thing. > > > > Matthew Loraditch > Sr. Network Engineer > p: *443.541.1518* <443.541.1518> > w: *www.heliontechnologies.com* <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> | > e: *[email protected]* <[email protected]> > > <image137282.png> > <http://www.heliontechnologies.com/> > > <image428710.png> > <https://facebook.com/heliontech> > > <image540273.png> > <https://twitter.com/heliontech> > > <image899251.png> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/helion-technologies> > > *From:* cisco-voip <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Charles > Goldsmith > *Sent:* Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:39 AM > *To:* Johnson, Tim <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [cisco-voip] [External] IPCC best practice > > > > [EXTERNAL] > > > > Agreed with TIm, it's just simpler to involve less systems if you can. > With 12.0 UCCX and higher, the calendar function is a nice addition, no > more XML files for schedules. > > > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 7:37 AM Johnson, Tim <[email protected]> wrote: > > It seems to me that there's not a "best practice" label for most > scenarios. When I started with UCCX, we went to a call handler first to > provide us with an easy way to provide a schedule, and a familiar way for > the customer to record a greeting. Later, we ended up building the schedule > into our script and directing calls to the trigger. That's my preference, > just to involve less systems. > > Tim Johnson > Voice & Video Engineer > Central Michigan University > Call me: +19897744406 > Video Call me: [email protected] > Fax me: +19897795900 > Meet me: http://cmich.webex.com/meet/johns10t > > > -----Original Message----- > From: cisco-voip <[email protected]> On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:19 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [External] [cisco-voip] IPCC best practice > > > Hello, I just have a quick question. > When setting up a call center for a SMB, Is it best practice to have the > main number go to a unity call handler 1st, with caller input going to uccx > triggers, or is it considered best practice to have the main number go > right to CCX? I have seen both ways. > > Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip > > _______________________________________________ > cisco-voip mailing list > [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip >
_______________________________________________ cisco-voip mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-voip
