On 02/05/2012 03:50 PM, Josh wrote:
One particular example of this, as I already pointed out in that earlier
post, is I'd like to ask "anonymous" callers (i.e. callers without any
caller IDs or callers placed in that group by myself/admin/other) to be
asked by Asterisk what is the reason for their call
...
Your description sounds almost entirely like the existing call
screening, so I'm pretty sure you'll be able to accomplish it. Start
with call screening, and modify that to suit your needs.
before routing the
call, then some sort of moh to be played while Asterisk - at the same
time - rings a nominated number and plays what the callers just said
(which should be recorded temporarily, obviously) and I would have 4
options - accept the call, in which case Asterisk transfers the caller
to me, reject it with a "not available" message, reject it but allow the
caller to leave a message, or reject the call returning a message to the
caller that the number is blacklisted.
I'd encourage you not to give callers much information. If you tell
callers that their number is blacklisted, or that the recipient is not
available (and not offer them voicemail), they're likely to call back
and provide different or no information. It'll be more effective to let
them leave voicemail and then delete and ignore it. Just a suggestion.
That was my initial intention as I was hoping Linux will map each
request/response using the appropriate interface (i.e. on which
interface it comes from), I realise binding on 0.0.0.0. is not ideal
from a security point of view (I'd rather issue separate udpbind
statements for the interfaces I want to use), but for now it have to do
if there isn't an alternative.
Linux *can* do that, but it requires a bit of configuration for route
selection.
All the routes are already configured
IP routing alone isn't actually sufficient (typically) to use multiple
interfaces. Under Linux, you have to set up multiple routing tables,
track connections, mangle reply packets (mark), and use 'ip rule' to
select the proper routing table for the packet. If you haven't verified
that replies go out the right interface, you should look. If you have,
then ignore me. :)
My only worry is
from a security point of view - 0.0.0.0 binding is for all interfaces,
which is not something I want, but can live with - for now.
I am a bit baffled though - Asterisk has existed for quite a while now
and I am not sure why this wasn't implemented sooner - everyone knows
that using 0.0.0.0 is a security risk.
No... binding to 0.0.0.0 isn't a security risk. Typically applications
bind to a specific address so that a single host can have multiple
addresses, and an application or multiple applications can bind to
specific addresses to implement virtual hosting.
--
_____________________________________________________________________
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
http://www.asterisk.org/hello
asterisk-users mailing list
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
