> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Timothy R. > McKee > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 11:58 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] VoIP hackers gut Caller ID > > > This has always been one of my pet peeves, even as I worked in > the industry. > A telco switch operating a DS1 on trunk side should enforce caller-id > numbers to be within the range of DID numbers assigned to that > trunk. There > should be a default DID number that is used to replace any > *invalid* numbers > sent on that trunk. Note that blocked caller ids would still be blocked, > but the rest of the data should be corrected. Blocking ID is ok, lying > about it is not. > > Blind trust of a non-SS7 link is a _bad_ thing. > > ==================================================================== > Timothy R. McKee > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kevin Walsh > Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 10:01 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] VoIP hackers gut Caller ID > > Adam Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Chris Foster wrote: > > > The Register is carrying a article written by Kevin Poulsen of > > > Securtiy Focus, calling asterisk "..the most powerful tool for > > > manipulating and accessing CPN data.." > > > > > > I hope NuFone doesn't drop asterisk-set-able callerid's after this > > > article; i've been wanting that feature from voicepluse for a long > > > time. > > > > > These kind of things will be reason (excuse) for Voip to be regulated > > > Perhaps service providers who allow the Caller*ID to be set should insist > that customers provide evidence that they own the phone numbers that they > want to publish, and then limit the customers' choices to only the numbers > in their approved list. Calling the customer on the provided number(s) > would be an easy way to check, and a setup fee could be levied to > cover the > provider's time and expenses, if required. > > Being able to discover a "blocked" Caller*ID is another matter. Both are > good areas for regulation. > > -- > _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ > _/_/_/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ K e v i n W a l s h > _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > > _______________________________________________ > Asterisk-Users mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
How then should a service provider who is routing tandem traffic place a call through any other network? This would preclude the ability for pre-paid or post paid providers to send out traffic at the originating customers request with correct callerid! Dave _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
