On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:31 PM, Nitzan Kon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- On Fri, 5/9/08, Steve Totaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The only other explanation is that he used two different >> phones but I am the trusting type. Besides the quoted >> article confirms that VoIP providers use Caller ID as ANI. > > I don't see a way to do it otherwise, as a carrier for outgoing > traffic, how exactly are you going to check or verify that the > CID being sent is not the ANI? just because you don't provide > the incoming number doesn't mean it's not valid, and if you do > it still doesn't mean it is. In essence as a carrier you have > no choice but to "trust" the CID you're being fed. > > As far as regulating this - no thanks! I agree there should be > a law out there against FRAUDULENT use, but the last thing any > VoIP carrier needs is regulation on LEGIT use. In essence if > you put a law out there saying "you should prevent your customers > from abusing this" that's fine, but if you put out a law saying > "spoofing CID is illegal" you're basically deeming most VSPs > illegal. Again, just because I "own" the number from provider A > doesn't mean I don't have to "spoof" it for provider B. Incoming > and outgoing are totally separate. > > -- Nitzan >
I think you are missing the whole point here. CID and ANI are DIFFERENT. A law concerning passing valid CID should not be passed. I have used it as a GUID between call centers. However, there should be a law against bogus ANI. Thanks, Steve Totaro _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com-- asterisk-biz mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-biz
