On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:10:00PM +0200, Trixter aka Bret McDanel wrote: > On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 16:28 -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote: > > As I noted, I'm perfectly happy to let aggregators do it by contract; > > the hammer that will fall on them is big enough that I don't think they > > need to validate a second (or third) time. > > well verification is a particularly hard thing to do correctly. For
Only in the core. It's trivial at the edge. IP routing people know this instinctively, and it translates. > example, e164.org will call the phone number then place the route. This > is not (or so it seems) done at intervals later on, which means you can > get a number, verify it, release it to someone else, get a new one, and > so on. You would end up with a bunch of numbers you only owned long > enough to get verified, and now belong to others, allowing you to hijack > their calls. <sigh> Please stop with the strawmen, would you? > Ok, so that is a problem with e164.org, but taking the verification > thing further, how exactly do you propose to do this for all the > customers that you have? If you place a phone call, it only proves that > they (or a disgruntled employee) has access to that number at that > particular point in time, it does not verify anything for the future. <sigh> again. Go back and actually read what I wrote... cause it's sure not what you're responding to. Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth Baylink [EMAIL PROTECTED] Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274 Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything. -- (Joseph Stalin) _______________________________________________ --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
